On Monday, 22 July 2013 at 01:33:02 UTC, Martin Nowak wrote:
On 07/17/2013 01:33 PM, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
So I was reading this:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Access_specifiers_and_visibility
After I went through it, I had an idea for a feature that I
hope would
be both intuitive and not too diffic
On 07/17/2013 01:33 PM, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
So I was reading this:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Access_specifiers_and_visibility
After I went through it, I had an idea for a feature that I hope would
be both intuitive and not too difficult to implement.
There is
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP22 and
htt
On Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 10:55:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 11:33:39 UTC, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
So I was reading this:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Access_specifiers_and_visibility
...
How will it be any different from
module foo.barstuff;
package:
// declarations
Thi
On Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 10:55:39 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 11:33:39 UTC, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
So I was reading this:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Access_specifiers_and_visibility
...
How will it be any different from
module foo.barstuff;
package:
// declarations
All
On Thursday, 18 July 2013 at 22:22:15 UTC, Tommi wrote:
All modules can import foo.barstuff, but only other modules in
foo could import a module declared as 'protected':
protected module foo.detail;
// declarations
This makes a clearer distinction between implementation detail
modules vs nor
On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 11:33:39 UTC, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
So I was reading this:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Access_specifiers_and_visibility
...
How will it be any different from
module foo.barstuff;
package:
// declarations
On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 11:33:39 UTC, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
Has anything like this been suggested/thought of before? I
looked through the DIP's but didn't see anything.
I don't know, but I think this is a good suggestion; stronger
language support for modules that are an implementation de
On Wednesday, 17 July 2013 at 11:38:32 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Jeremy DeHaan:
package module foo.barstuff;
Or this?
private module foo.barstuff;
Bye,
bearophile
In some sense, I feel like package, private, or protected would
all work semantically. I only used package because I was trying
Jeremy DeHaan:
package module foo.barstuff;
Or this?
private module foo.barstuff;
Bye,
bearophile
So I was reading this:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Access_specifiers_and_visibility
After I went through it, I had an idea for a feature that I hope
would be both intuitive and not too difficult to implement.
We already have the protection attributes public, private,
protected, and package. Why
10 matches
Mail list logo
