On 01/28/2013 06:05 PM, Dicebot wrote:
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP22
There are two important issues with current protection attribute
design:
* Senseless name clashes between private and public symbols
* No way to specify internal linkage storage class
This DIP addresses both of them with two decoupled proposals:
* Change of private related name resolution rules
* Definition of static storage class for module-scope symbols.
___________________________________________
Quotes, data and link to previous discussion:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Access_specifiers_and_visibility
___________________________________________
I think this is the point where public discussion will do more
good than my own exploration of corner cases. Please destroy and
pay closest attention to compile-time reflection - I have a
feeling I have missed something there.
Fixing private is enough.
Not a fan of the static thing at all. It is a great thing that the
static attribute actually has a consistent meaning in D.
mixin template X(){
static int x = 2;
}
class C{
mixin X; // x is a public TLS variable
}
mixin X; // x is a public TLS variable.
No need to screw this up.
