Am 10.11.2013 13:39, schrieb Timon Gehr:
On 11/10/2013 01:06 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Am 10.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Timon Gehr:
On 11/10/2013 12:42 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
Am 08.11.2013 20:32, schrieb Walter Bright:
> It looks pretty good, except I have serious reservations about the
-lib switch proposed behavior:
I'm glad you like the proposal.
>
> 1. It's too blunt. A user could conceivably want to export some
symbols and not others. This is all or nothing.
A user is already able to control which symbols are exported and which
are not by using the "export" attribute. ...
Using the export attribute on some member exports the entire module
info. If I understand this right, the module info will contain
information also about non-exported members of the module and therefore
even non-exported members will be accessible from outside. Is this
correct?
AFAIK the module info only contains information about the (shared)
module constructors and destructors. And no, non exported symbols will
not be acessible because the neccessary accessors are not generated for
them (at least on windows).
What about Object.factory?
That would obviously work. But why would you want to restrict that for
shared libraries? Its not restricted for static libraries either. And
esentially a shared library should behave exactly the same as a static one.
