On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:13:30 -0400, Dicebot <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 June 2013 at 18:33:21 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
Since protected access is actually ESSENTIAL in OOP (at least, some
form of virtual non-public function access, private is not virtual, so
it would be disastrous to remove protected), I am wondering whether
Walter really meant "package", as that has very little utility.
"package" may become quite useful once we have better package. It allows
to have some local "utility" module used by specific package but not
generic enough in global so that it won't cause name collision (after
DIP22 is implemented, of course).
Sure, but I'm trying to read the comment in the context it was in.
Certainly, if Daniel's patch to allow package imports is accepted, then
package becomes almost essential for splitting up a module :)
But at the time this comment was made, none of that was on the table. And
removing protected would be disastrous. I can't fathom why he said
protected should be removed. Which is why I hypothesized that he really
meant package. But I'd rather just let Walter explain what he meant at
this point...
-Steve
