+1 on some kind of invisibility/private-ness override feature. Another bonus of
that is to use it as a temporary workaround if some 3rd party package has made
something "overly" private as viewed by an "expert" user. While this has come
up in the context of library writing, sometimes users of libraries understand
many of its internals and sometimes they don't. Private, not exported, is
probably the right default or at least too late to change, but it's easy to
forget a `*` export marker and easy to disagree. This proposed mechanism would
allow temporary workarounds much closer to a likely more sanitary future usage.
It might be better to call it something scarier/less similar to a token like
`private` which can be _so_ common in other prog.lang's as to lead to questions
like "why does `private` mean this negative sense in Nim but positive sense in
Foo?". `import foo {.overrideInvisibility.}` or `overridePrivate` or something.
Just some kind of word to indicate bypassing of normal-ness (to act as a
redundant cue over there being a pragma there at all). I agree that
`{.breakTheGlassAndMakeEverythingVisible.}` is severe overkill. :-)
