"Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:itsqov$1mnt$1...@digitalmars.com... > On 22/06/11 2:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> In your example, the user needs to be able to use the Foo symbol in order >> to >> get full use out of Foos. However, in my example, the user does *not* >> need >> to use the Foo symbol in order to get full use out of Bar. They can just >> use >> Bar in place of Foo. The "Foo" symbol is a necessary part of Foos's >> interface, but it is *not* a necessary part Bar's interface. > > They don't *need* the Foo symbol: > > // module A > private class Foo; > public alias Foo[] Foos; > Foos getFoos(); > > // module B > import A; > void main() > { > Foos foos = getFoos(); > foos[0].someFunc(); > auto f = foos[0]; > } > > > Here, module B hasn't used the Foo symbol, but it's as if Foo isn't > private at all. I don't know about you, but this feel really wrong to me. >
Perhaps. I could probably be persuaded either way. But again, I don't see that as being relevent to: private class Foo; public alias Foo Bar;
