On 12/21/2013 08:29 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
On Saturday, 21 December 2013 at 17:41:32 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
Adding a private symbol to an overload set can break 3rd party code
with these rules.
Yes, this is understood, but it seems like a good tradeoff when compared
to the alternative where overload resolution depends on look-up origin.
The latter could easily break generic code and simple refactorings could
introduce subtle bugs.
...
I think both options are similarly undesirable.
Since private symbols are usually excluded from di files I don't think
this design is viable.
This, I don't have a good answer for, except that we have to put the
private overload in the .di file as well.
I think it would be better to disallow overload sets with mixed
protection.
Tried that, doesn't work. The most common counterexample is mixing
private/public constructors.
You have a point there. :o)
