On Sunday, 17 April 2016 at 05:04:46 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 05:23:26PM +0000, Jack Stouffer via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
I'm pretty sure that toImpl being public is an oversight. The
name itself implies that it should be private. I seriously
doubt any user code actually calls toImpl directly... shouldn't
it be just a matter of marking it private instead? Do we
really need to go through a deprecation cycle for this?
T
+1 for avoiding the depreciation cycle and directly setting it to
private.
