On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:32:28 +0100, David Nadlinger <s...@klickverbot.at>
wrote:
On 2/12/12 7:28 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
The shallow distinction of visibility vs. accessibility breaks the
module system because
one can't safely add a private symbol without possibly affecting every
dependent module.
Thus we're back at using underscore names to protect from that.
Yes, and this is exactly why I argued to disregard invisible symbols
during overload resolution in the past. Walter seems to be firmly
convinced that the current solution is the right thing to do, but I
can't recall what his reasons were.
David
Overloading is only the trickier part of it, but it affects all other
symbols as well.
As far as overloading goes C++ does it one way and Java choses the other.
IMHO mixing protection levels for overloads could be disallowed.
