On Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 08:47:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Pretty much every time that this issue comes up, people are
surprised by the
fact that private symbols aren't hidden and pretty much no one
wants them to
be in overload sets. I think that you're the only one that I've
seen post that
they thought that the current behavior is a good idea
(certainly, anyone who
agrees with you is in the minority or is silent on the issue).
What we
currently have leaks implementation detalis and thus causes
code breakage when
the implementation is changed. It needs to be fixed.
- Jonathan M Davis
I had no idea this was going on. If "private" symbols are not
really private then they shouldn't be called private because that
is very misleading and can lead to subtle mistakes that will be
difficult to understand and avoid.
When I've defined something to be private, I really expect it to
be private to the outside, or at best a friend within the same
module.
--rt
