import concerns (was Re: Historical language survey)

Ivan Senji ivan.senji_REMOVE_ at _THIS__gmail.com
Sat Jul 8 01:20:59 PDT 2006


Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 13:38:13 +1000, Walter Bright
> <newshound at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Jul 2006 06:56:47 +1000, Walter Bright
>>> <newshound at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The alias works at any level you choose to make it. Alias can be
>>>> used to 'import' any name into the current namespace, making it
>>>> first class.
>>>  Even names that are declared 'private' in the imported module? Is
>>> that how you want it to work Walter? If so, why do we bother with
>>> 'private'? What's the point?
>>
>> In class scope, access control is done *after* name lookup, not
>> before. I'm concerned about confusion by reversing the order of that
>> for module scope.
> 
> Well don't be concerned. It is far more confusing for something declared
> as private to be not seen as private. I believe the natural way of
> thinking for people is that some that is "private" is not to be *seen*
> by others, and thus not accessed. So I naturally think that if the
> compiler notices that something is "private" it just pretends that it
> didn't see it and acts as if it doesn't exist.

Exactly, the fact that something can or cannot be accessed should be
related to its visibility. (And private to me sounds like invisible).

> 
> I am totally convinced that the current thinking is unnatural. That the
> compile sees something therefore ignores the wishes of the author.

Indeed!



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list