01-Feb-2013 13:34, Dicebot пишет:
On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 11:39:26 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01/30/2013 10:42 AM, Dicebot wrote:
...
That was the most uneasy part of proposal. I have been thinking for few
hours about it, considering different options. In the end, I have
decided that it is only confusing to one coming from C++ lax approach
and for clean mind it should make perfect sense that private symbol is
indistinguishable from non-existing one in regular user code - that is
the point of encapsulation how I get it.
...
As long as compile-time reflection cannot get hold of the error
message, the more helpful diagnostic does not do any harm. (After all,
the programmer might still be aware of the existence of the member,
but missing that it is not accessible (yet) from the module he/she is
currently working on.)
I am arguing exactly that it is more helpful as it somewhat breaks
encapsulation. I really believe it is good to not give out information
that was no supposed to be shown. What do you think about changing both
undefined and denied access messages to one "symbol is undefined or
inaccessible" then?
just tell what it is: not visible, period!
And BTW good dip, the first part.
The second about internal (C's static) is up for more work.
--
Dmitry Olshansky
