On Saturday, 3 September 2016 at 20:40:57 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 9/3/16 7:57 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Previously __traits(allMembers, T) listed _all_ members,
whereas now it wil
only list the ones that are accessible. The same for
__traits(derivedMembers, T). So, they'll still give you the
private members
if you use them inside the module in question but not
elsewhere.
That... doesn't sound good. I wonder how such important changes
slip by Walter and myself unnoticed.
It didn't slip, but I wish Walter had at least stated his opinion
on the PR before merging.
My thinking is that the plebes should be able to access things
via the object.member syntax by obeying the usual visibility
rules. But __traits(allMembers, T) should be the reflection
backdoor that gives the savvy users total access, at the
obvious cost of an awkward syntax.
As explained several times here and in the announce thread,
private members have never been accessible, other than
introspecting attributes, and making them accessible comes with a
performance cost and a fairly big language change.
So the real question is, why do we need introspection without
access, and can we handle that few cases with mixin templates.
If we really need introspection of private members than we might
need to go back to the drawing board and modify the visibility
concept introduced with DIP22.
