Private visible?

[Lars Ivar Igesund]

Dave wrote:

> Lars Ivar Igesund wrote:
>  > Lucas Goss wrote:
>  >
>  >> Was there ever any resolve as to private being visible? I know Walter
>  >> said he saw the value of private by default, but what about private
>  >> being visible? It just seems to have dropped off the radar and I don't
>  >> know if thats good or bad.
>  >>
>  >> Lucas
>  >
>  > Did you mean accessible? Anyway, see Bruno's post, although I'm quite
> sure
>  > it won't be forgotten by some of us ;)
>  >
> 
> Here's my take - feel free to correct:
> 
> - accessible: the symbol can be used (accessed). Must be visible as well
> for the lookup (I realize this is obvious).

Yes, that would be the sane thing, but one of the privacy problems in D, is
that it has been possible to access symbols by using the FQN, even though
it really isn't visible (declared to be private). As it is, I see no reason
to differ between visible and accessible, IMO they're two sides of the same
coin, or should be.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource & #D: larsivi