On Monday, December 24, 2012 12:20:35 Jacob Carlborg wrote: > On 2012-12-24 01:11, Walter Bright wrote: > > 1. what access means at module scope > > 2. at class scope > > 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 also want to add: > > 8. Investigate the usefulness and possibility to combine multiple access > attributes for more fine grained control, i.e. using "package" and > "protected" on a single declaration
I believe that C# did something similar. It would certainly solve the question of package's virtuality quite nicely and wouldn't change any existing code, just allow for those who want virtual package functions to have them. - Jonathan M Davis
