"Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:jfnag6$317n$1...@digitalmars.com... > "Martin Nowak" <d...@dawgfoto.de> wrote in message > news:mailman.782.1327427928.16222.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... >> Should aliases be allowed to raise the accessibility of a symbol? >> >> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4533 >> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6013 > > Yes. >
How else are you going to separate the interface for the internal implementation of a template from its for-public-consumption interface? This whole issue is literally *NO* different from "Should a public pointer/reference be allowed to point to private data?" or "Should a public function be allowed to expose a private one?" The answer is: "Obviously yes". I don't understand why anyone thinks this is any different just because they're aliases instead of pointers/references/functions/etc. All the arguments against public alias to private symbols apply equally to these questions too, and in those cases nobody would even question it. What is it about aliases that suddenly trips people up and makes them think the whole concept of accessibility should be flipped around on its head?