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?
I have to support that.
static have already quite a lot of different meaning in D, and
adding yet a new one probably not a good idea. Especially when
module level declaration are supposed to be static by default, so
now they can be static static, which is clearly a bad idea.
Is the usage of export have been considered here ? private
declaration are static/private, unless defined export ? Does that
work ?
