On 4/11/18 3:13 PM, bauss wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 April 2018 at 17:58:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday, April 08, 2018 13:00:02 bauss via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
I don't know. It could be argued either way. I think that the logic as
to why
[...]
The thing is, it makes no sense why it shouldn't be legal since you can
just cast to the base type, by that alone you're escaping the
restriction that it's supposed to have.
And it really goes against that private is module level.
If it was module level then you should be able to access the member
regardless of the reference to it.
Just going through old messages on the NG.
I filed a bug about a similar thing (calling private functions instead
of using private variables), but it seemed to be agreed upon that this
is expected behavior:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15897
You may find some more insight from reading that discussion. I don't
agree with the conclusion, as it is very surprising behavior to me.
-Steve
