+1, this is an oversight from my side, protected properties should be prohibited too.
2017-01-25 12:56 GMT+01:00 Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>: > Hi, for traits we explicitly prohibit protected (and package private) > methods - see the doco for some details. For properties however, we > never check (in 2.4.7 and earlier) for that case (protected) and in > fact include the property in the trait as if it was private. I was > thinking of adding an extra check to prohibit protected properties > since I don't think we can give any special meaning beyond private (or > public) and it's only confusing to let that case through. Any other > opinions? > > Cheers, Paul. >
