Am Wed, 19 Jul 2017 17:25:18 +0000 schrieb Petar Kirov [ZombineDev] <petar.p.ki...@gmail.com>:
> > > > Note: not 100% sure of all this, but this is always the way > > I've looked at it. > > You're probably right about the current implementation, but I was > talking about the intended semantics. I believe that with DIP45, > only functions and global variables annotated with the export > storage class would necessary have externally visible symbols. > Yes, this DIP is the solution to have true C-like static functions. Non-exported private will then be equivalent to C static. > Also, consider this enhancement request (which I think Walter and > Andrei approve of) - > https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13567 - which would be > doable only if private functions don't have externally visible > symbols. Can you explain why _object-level visibility_ would matter in this case? -- Johannes
