On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:15 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-announce < firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Friday, 2 September 2016 at 07:46:30 UTC, Rory McGuire wrote: > actually, from my PoV solution is supereasy: just remove ALL visibility > restrictions for traits. and i mean all. allMembers should return all > members, getMember should allow to access *any* existing member without > annoying messages. it is up to programmer to insert getProtection checks if > he needs it. > > traits is a low-level feature by definition, and doesn't meant to be used > directly (we have std.traits wrappers for that), so i want D devs to stop > making our, low-level coders, life harder than it is now. ;-) > > D devs just should draw the line between __traits and std.traits. first > sould be inherently unsafe, allow *everything* and impose as little > restrictions as it is possible (note: *as* *possible*, not *as* *sane* -- > all kind of insanity should be allowed, if it is possible). then, > std.traits wrappers should use __traits to build *safe* things (declaring > that @trusted in the end). > May our benevolent dictators agree with you :D (I do). If a developer is willing to research the language definition and discover __traits, you should be ready for unprotected intimacy with the hardware of your choice. And if someone just copy pastes code with __traits in it they should know that "__" in a symbol is a "WARNING here be dragons"