"Steven Schveighoffer" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 01:55:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> >> Yea, that occurred to me, too. <wishful musing>I've been starting to >> think >> more and more that the "everything in a module is a friend" was a >> mistake, >> and that we should have instead just had a "module" access specifier like >> we >> have "package".</wishful musing> > > I don't think it was a mistake, it makes perfect sense to me. On the > other hand, I fully understand why Meyers' prescription is useful for > humongous code bases. However, I don't see this causing much trouble for > code I write. > > For instance, you have two classes you may have put into the same module > because they are categorically related (not necessarily friends in C++ > terms). It's highly unlikely that you "accidentally" access private > information across the classes. So how much time is "wasted" checking the > other class for external references? Probably none. >
Large portions of D's access specifiers were completely unenforced for a long time and it never caused me much trouble. Doesn't mean they didn't still need to enforced.
