import concerns (C++ visib question)

[Bruno Medeiros]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>>> I'm sorry Walter but I don't give newt's fart about C++. If I wanted 
>>> to code under the rules of C++, I'd use C++. You have changed 
>>> (improved) many of the C++ rules in D, so why not get this one right 
>>> too?
>>
>> I agree that D exists to fix broken rules in C++, but we need to 
>> understand the rationale for why they are the way they are in C++, 
>> else we run the risk of making a severe error. I don't recall why the 
>> access rules are the way they are in C++, but I do know they weren't 
>> don't that way for backwards compatibility.
> 
> Please see my post here:
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/39072
> 
> According to Daveed Vandevoorde:
> 
>    The fact that private members are inaccessible but not invisible
>    regularly surprises incidental programmers. Like macros, seemingly
>    unrelated declarations interfere with subsequent code. Unfortunately,
>    there are good reasons for this state of affair: Without it, private
>    out-of-class member declarations become impractical to parse in the
>    general case.
> 

Well, that clearly states that private members should not be invisible 
in C++, but I'm having trouble understanding why. He says "Without it, 
private out-of-class member declarations become impractical to parse in 
the general case." but I don't see how or why, anyone has an example or 
clarification?

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D