On 1/26/13 6:13 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
On Saturday, 26 January 2013 at 22:23:05 UTC, mist wrote:
Made me sad and wondering: was there any DIP after that thread or it
has ended, as it often happens, with a decision to "plan carefully"?
I *think* Walter is still against changing it, on the grounds that it
would make module-level private different from any other type of private.
Walter and I believe it is necessary to define module private in a way
that makes the symbol impossible to leak. Work on a detailed DIP would
be definitely welcome. Walter enumerated a few concerns that the DIP
should address in a message. What was the title of the past discussion?
Andrei
