On Friday, 28 December 2012 at 21:12:48 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 12/24/12 6:20 AM, 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
Has anyone started a DIP on this? Let's not let things scroll
away from the institutional memory.
Andrei
I feel like the issue is much deeper. I have no clue what the
priorities are when resolving some identifiers, and the doc is
unclear about it, and dmd is sometime inconsistent, or some other
time don't implement the feature (for instance multiple alias
this).
In a.b , b can be :
1 a member of a.
2 a member of an alias this of a.
3 any recursion of the case 2.
4 an UFCS function.
5 an UFCS function using an alias this of a as argument.
6 any recursion of 5.
7 an imported symbol at scope level.
8 repeat 4, 5 and 6 with that imported symbol.
9 an imported symbol at module level.
10 repeat 4, 5 and 6 with that imported symbol.
11 all cases I have forgotten as I wrote that quickly.
It is unclear when they take priorities over each other and when
they collide. Visibility is another variable to the equation, but
in a first place, this is unclear without them.
