On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 16:44:56 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 01/29/2013 11:29 AM, Dicebot wrote:
Fixing private is enough.
...
No need to screw this up.
By the way, do you oppose exactly "static" keyword usage> or
ability to
mark symbols for internal linkage at all? How about something
like
@internal?
I only oppose changing the meaning of "static". I do not have
any strong feelings about being able to mark symbols for
internal linkage, but I do not see why it is necessary. Can't a
compiler just mark all symbols for internal linkage that can be
marked such given the constraints you would impose on @internal
marked symbols?
As far as I can see, it is rather problematic. When compiling
module compiler may never know what will be referenced from other
object files during link time. Even private symbols that do not
leak can't be removed away that simple - we really want to
preserve ability to access private members via tupleof and/or
traits for power libraries. And it is nice to have compiler
support to verify symbols does not leak ( == you can
change/remove it any time with 100% guarantees to break no other
module ) as an additional cherry on top.
