[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 --- Comment #14 from d...@dawgfoto.de 2012-09-06 04:21:38 PDT --- Besides C++ people seem to draw the same conclusions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOCYQ033K8&t=4m41s http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2006.pdf -- Con

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 --- Comment #13 from d...@dawgfoto.de 2012-09-06 03:52:07 PDT --- >D takes it access modifier design from C++, and it's purely a question of accessibility, not visibility, even if many people expect it to affect visibility. C++ doesn't have acc

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan M Davis 2012-09-05 19:26:03 PDT --- D takes it access modifier design from C++, and it's purely a question of accessibility, not visibility, even if many people expect it to affect visibility. AFAIK, Walter doesn'

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 --- Comment #11 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2012-09-05 18:49:03 PDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > > It shouldn't be. The summary obviously describes horribly broken behaviour. > > It describes how it works in C++ Irrelevant. > which is exactly h

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 --- Comment #10 from Jonathan M Davis 2012-09-05 18:16:11 PDT --- > It shouldn't be. The summary obviously describes horribly broken behaviour. It describes how it works in C++ which is exactly how it works in D. It's that way by design, and

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 timon.g...@gmx.ch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||timon.g...@gmx.ch --- Comment #9 fr

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 d...@dawgfoto.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||d...@dawgfoto.de --- Comment #8 from

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan M Davis 2012-09-04 20:00:57 PDT --- However, it _would_ be really nice if we could at least make it so that private functions weren't considered in overload resolution. As it stands, things like private aliases are

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 Walter Bright changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com --- Comment #

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 Christian Kamm changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 --- Comment #4 from Andrej Mitrovic 2011-06-25 10:13:15 PDT --- Thanks Jon, that sheds the light on the issue. I guess this will be difficult to solve then. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 Jonathan M Davis changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jmdavisp...@gmx.com --- Comment #3

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 --- Comment #2 from Andrej Mitrovic 2011-06-25 09:46:08 PDT --- I don't really understand this notion of "visibility" vs "accessibility". Can someone show me some code that shows the difference between the two? -- Configure issuemail: http:

[Issue 6180] Private has no effect on types in modules

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6180 Peter Alexander changed: What|Removed |Added CC||peter.alexander...@gmail.co