On Tuesday, 24 September 2013 at 07:08:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2013 08:54:42 simendsjo wrote:
I just came across a problem where I either has a cyclic
dependency, pass around three delegates, implement an interface
or somehow hack some communication between two modules.
A simple way would be to add an interface, but interfaces
require
implementations to be public. The methods should be package
protected though.
It would have been nice if the implementation for an interface
wouldn't have to be more visible than the interface itself.
If an interface is "package", it cannot escape that package, so
why would the implementation required to be public? The same
goes
for "private".
Should I add an enhancement request for this, or does it have
problems I'm not seeing?
Only public and protected are virtual. private and package are
never virtual.
This is by design. As such, it is impossible for an interface
to be anything
but public or protected and actually work.
There has been some discussion of making it so that non-virtual
is the
default, in which case, we'd have the virtual keyword, and it
would be
required to make a function virtual (similar to C++). If we
ever actually go
that route, then it may become possible to make package and
private functions
virtual (or it may not - that will depend on what's decided at
that point),
but it's definitely not going to happen if we don't go that
route.
So, if you want to use interfaces, you need to be using public
or protected to
implement them. package and private are not an option.
- Jonathan M Davis
Ok, thanks. I'll fix it some other way.
