Question

This code:

abstract class C {     protected abstract void F(D d); }  class D : C {     protected override void F(D d) { }      void G(C c)     {         c.F(this);     } } 

Generates this error:

Cannot access protected member ‘C.F(D)’ via a qualifier of type ‘C’; the qualifier must be of type ‘D’ (or derived from it)

What in the world were they thinking? (Would altering that rule break something?) And is there a way around that aside from making F public?

---

Edit: I now get the reason for why this is (Thanks Greg) but I’m still a bit perplexed as to the rational; given:

class E : C {     protected override void F(D d) { } }   

Why shouldn’t D be able to be able to call E.F?

---

The error message is edited so I might have put a typo in there.

Answer 1

The ‘protected’ keyword means that only a type and types that derive from that type can access the member. D has no relationship to C therefore cannot access the member.

You have a couple of options if you want to be able to access that member

• Make it public
• Make it internal. This will allow any types to access the member within the same assembly (or other assemblies should you add friend’s)
• Derive D from C

EDIT

This scenario is called out in section 3.5.3 of the C# spec.

The reason this is not allowed is because it would allow for cross hierarchy calls. Imagine that in addition to D, there was another base class of C called E. If your code could compile it would allow D to access the member E.F. This type of scenario is not allowed in C# (and I believe the CLR but I don’t 100% know).

EDIT2 Why this is bad

Caveat, this is my opinion

The reason this is now allowed is it makes it very difficult to reason about the behavior of a class. The goal of access modifiers is to give the developer control over exactly who can access specific methods. Imagine the following class

sealed class MyClass : C {   override F(D d) { ... }  } 

Consider what happens if F is a somewhat time critical function. With the current behavior I can reason about the correctness of my class. After all there are only two cases where MyClass.F will be called.

1. Where it’s invoked in C
2. Where I explicitly invoke it in MyClass

I can examine these calls and come to a reasonable conclusion about how MyClass functions.

Now, if C# does allow cross hierarchy protected access I can make no such guarantee. Anyone in a completely different assembly can come by and derive from C. Then they can call MyClass.F at will. This makes it completely impossible to reason about the correctness of my class.