On 12/22/12 9:29 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 12/22/2012 12:46 AM, 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.
This has been discussed before, and the same people wanted private
functions removed from overload sets in classes.
So why does this never come up in C++ if it's such a problem? Like I
said, I've never seen this come up on peoples' lists of what they don't
like about C++, and it isn't because they're shy about complaining about
C++ :-)
The scope is very different. We're talking classes vs. entire modules
and, by percolation of symbols, entire applications.
The comparison would be inappropriate, as would be deriving conclusions
applicable to D from it.
Private inside a module must mean what the person on the street thinks.
No visibility outside the module at all. There are no two ways about it.
Andrei
