On Friday, December 21, 2012 22:42:54 Walter Bright wrote: > On 12/21/2012 6:55 PM, Timon Gehr wrote: > > How it works within classes and structs only affects the exact contents of > > error messages anyway, right? (not accessible vs. not defined) I'd > > consider that a compiler implementation detail. > > No, it affects the list of candidates for function overloading.
But we _want_ that. The fact that inaccessible functions are even considered in overload sets is horrible. That's precisely the problem. No inaccessible functions should be in overload sets. Otherwise, simply adding a private function to a module can break code elsewhere. I don't see _any_ benefit in having inaccessible functions be in overload sets. It's leaking implementation details outside of the scope that they're in and breaking code elsewhere when changes are made. What do you think is so desirable about having inaccessible functions in overload sets? - Jonathan M Davis
