Walter Bright wrote: > On 12/23/2012 4:03 AM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote: >> Because C++ *can* hide symbols from other modules with the >> anonymous namespace. D has no equivalent. > > Everyone here has raised some good points. But this isn't a simple > issue, so I suggest getting together and preparing a DIP. A DIP > should address: > 1. what access means at module scope
No no. What is persecutiion? > 2. at class scope What is "class"?Nuf said, ask bred beauty of Trump lineage. I hate her. I don't hate her. I do hate though, mind you. what what? time out apparently I need money, lots of it, to engange pretty women. oh shut the fuck upp........... I cannot be someone I love as much as .... I get to type? Now THIS is an aberration... I am afflicted what is I musst have fell down or something last month.. maybe I was typin hee and dib;t iy iwe ne biw ii > 3. at template mixin scope > 4. backwards compatibility > 5. overloading at each scope level and the interactions with access > 6. I'd also throw in getting rid of the "protected" access attribute > completely, as I've seen debate over that being a useless idea > 7. there's also some debate about what "package" should mean > > I.e. it should be a fairly comprehensive design addressing access, > not just one aspect of it.