On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:07:20 +0100, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sunday, February 12, 2012 19:32:28 David Nadlinger wrote:
On 2/12/12 7:28 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
> The shallow distinction of visibility vs. accessibility breaks the
> module system because
> one can't safely add a private symbol without possibly affecting every
> dependent module.
> Thus we're back at using underscore names to protect from that.
Yes, and this is exactly why I argued to disregard invisible symbols
during overload resolution in the past. Walter seems to be firmly
convinced that the current solution is the right thing to do, but I
can't recall what his reasons were.
I'm not 100% sure that it's a good idea, depending on what the exact side
effects are, but in principle, I'd love it if private symbols were
invisible to
other modules.
Now, this does _not_ fly with private being overridable, as TDPL claims
it
should be. But I've already argued that that was a mistake due to the
performance issues that it causes. I'm not sure what Walter's current
plans
with that are though.
Can you elaborate on what issues you see with NVI. After all it's only the
final public
method that needs to call the virtual private methods.
