Invalid combination of 'private' and 'virtual' modifiers
Secondly the java stub is now also automaticly creating an interface including the setter, which should also be removed when the field is readonly
dsavTue 13 Sep 2011
You can declare a method rather than a field: abstract SVGAnimatedString? href() This makes a little difference, since you don't need () when accessing it. In implementations, you also may override this slot with const field, if you want it to be truly const.
brianTue 13 Sep 2011
Mixins cannot allocate storage themselves, rather a field in a mixin is essentially an contract that an implementing class has a getter and setter for that slot. So if a subclass were to hide the setter, that would essentially be like trying to hide the public setter method which would break the type contract. What you can do as @dsav suggests is to just have a no-arg methods. Virtual no-arg methods can be overridden by subclasses as fields (const, private setter, etc).
jessevdam Mon 12 Sep 2011
How can I make a mixin field readonly, when I try to do
It says
Secondly the java stub is now also automaticly creating an interface including the setter, which should also be removed when the field is readonly
dsav Tue 13 Sep 2011
You can declare a method rather than a field:
abstract SVGAnimatedString? href()
This makes a little difference, since you don't need()
when accessing it. In implementations, you also may override this slot withconst
field, if you want it to be truly const.brian Tue 13 Sep 2011
Mixins cannot allocate storage themselves, rather a field in a mixin is essentially an contract that an implementing class has a getter and setter for that slot. So if a subclass were to hide the setter, that would essentially be like trying to hide the public setter method which would break the type contract. What you can do as @dsav suggests is to just have a no-arg methods. Virtual no-arg methods can be overridden by subclasses as fields (const, private setter, etc).