Re: package and virtual

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 01-03-2012 11:34, Rene Zwanenburg wrote:
On Thursday, 1 March 2012 at 07:45:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, March 01, 2012 08:26:00 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2012-03-01 01:53, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> package functions are currenly non-virtual.
> > The spec claims that "all non-sta­tic non-pri­vate >
non-tem­plate mem­ber
> func­ tions are vir­tual," which would mean that package > is
supposed to
> be virtual. But from what I recall, the plan is to leave > package as
> non-virtual. So, is that indeed the case and the spec needs > to be
fixed,
> or is package going to be made virtual at some point?
> > - Jonathan M Davis
Is anyone even using "package"? I've basically never used it.

Well, it's the sort of thing that's more useful with larger programs,
so I
question how much it's being used, but it definitely can be useful.
std.datetime will likely be using it in the near future, since I'm
working on
breaking it up into a package (leaving std.datetime to then import
everything
in the package).

But regardless, it's currently broken:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143

- Jonathan M Davis

I agree, virtual package function would be nice. ATM, as a workaround we
use a package function which forwards the call to a protected function,
and give the constructors package protection so only classes in the same
package can inherit from it. That works, but it's not perfect.

I'd go further and say that's completely ridiculous. The language should 
not impose such stupid semantics on you because of a visibility modifier.

--
- Alex