Re: Oddity with 'protected internal' and derivation
- From: Jon Skeet [C# MVP] <skeet@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:53:12 +0100
Serge Baltic <baltic-@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Which would mean a circular reference of assemblies.
Which is just OK with .NET, why not?
I don't believe so - as far as I'm aware, if assembly A references
assembly B, the reverse can't be true.
For one thing, you've got a problem as to which you compile first...
You can have circular *class* references, but they need to be in the
same assembly.
--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@xxxxxxxxx>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Oddity with 'protected internal' and derivation
- From: Serge Baltic
- Re: Oddity with 'protected internal' and derivation
- References:
- Re: Oddity with 'protected internal' and derivation
- From: Clive Dixon
- Re: Oddity with 'protected internal' and derivation
- From: Serge Baltic
- Re: Oddity with 'protected internal' and derivation
- Prev by Date: Re: Oddity with 'protected internal' and derivation
- Next by Date: Re: Simple question on constructor
- Previous by thread: Re: Oddity with 'protected internal' and derivation
- Next by thread: Re: Oddity with 'protected internal' and derivation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|