On 21/04/2014 09:49, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
I often wish "private" meant class private in D. I know, the usual argument against this is that someone who writes a module usually has full control of that module, but again, Phobos is an example of the contrary. Each module has at least a dozen authors, even if they aren't all listed in the documentation.
I think this is a good argument. True private aids developers when refactoring. Also synchronized classes always have true private members, so it would be better if D could express it instead of changing the meaning of 'private' for them.
I also know it's never going to happen due to the amount of code breakage it would cause. But maybe we could extend the syntax a bit? E.g. "private(class)" or "class private"?
Perhaps the following would work: * Add 'module' as synonym for 'private' * Add '@private' for true private access * Deprecate 'private' after some years I doubt this would be popular due to churn, but I would support it.
