On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 23:50:57 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 21:48:22 UTC, Laurent Tréguier
wrote:
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 17:09:05 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
[...]
It's not "my" solution. It's D's solution. I perfectly
understand why you'd want this and I would probably make use
of a private/internal difference myself if it was available.
If you already know about this solution however, I don't even
know why you're starting this thread; since changing the
behavior of private would be a major language change breaking
tons of existing codebases, plus it would require adding yet
another keyword.
Given that this conversation has happened before and things
haven't changed, I'm very doubtful that it could happen at any
point in time, sadly.
If the cost out way the benefits then I simply introduce the
"strict" keyword to avoid code breakage, or introduce the
optional module scoping.
-Alex
Technically, introducing any new keyword is also a potentially
code breaking change. Any symbol named "strict" would have to be
changed. This is why I'm doubtful that such a change would be
accepted.
