Package level access broken?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Monday, April 23, 2012 01:59:15 Era Scarecrow wrote:
> On Sunday, 22 April 2012 at 23:32:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > 1. Package access is _very_ broken:
> > http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143
> 
>   Fun... So it's not just me... Guess for the 1-2 places I 'll
> need package level access instead I gotta either do public or get
> some getters (Was just hoping to ignore that).

For the most part, I believe that the problem is that you can use package 
functions when you _shouldn't_ be able to rather than not being able to use 
them when you should, but I'd have to read through the bug report again. 
Certainly, for the little that I've used package, it's at least worked in that 
other stuff in the package is able to access it.

> > 2. I'm not sure that your code is even using package properly.
> 
>   No, they may not be in a package specifically; I but with them
> being directory/hierarchy they should be in the package group.

It's debatable. And from what's happening with your code, it certainly looks 
like the compiler does not consider such modules to be in the same package. 
Personally, I would argue that if you intend to use package, it should 
actually be with stuff in their own package anyway, not base level modules. 
Otherwise, it's not much different from using public. And with that, whether 
the compiler treats t1 and t2 as being in the same package or not becomes 
irrelevant.

- Jonathan M Davis