Proposal keyword 'outer' (mixins)

[Tom S]

Bruno Medeiros wrote:
> Tom S wrote:
>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>> Seems an ok proposal for outer classes.
>>> But as for mixins that doesn't make sense, the scope they access is 
>>> already the scope of the instantiation.
>>
>> That's the point. The rules for mixins must change as they are 
>> inconsistent and error prone at the moment. IMO they should only be 
>> granted access to the outer scope thru the 'outer' keyword and by 
>> default only see the scope of their declaration.
>>
>>
> 
> Ok, but then that's a whole other issue altogether.

Uhmm... how ? You said it didn't make sense for mixins and I claim that 
it does and that they will benefit from the 'outer' keyword. Actually, 
it's more important for them than for inner classes, as the current 
rules for mixins are way borked IMO...

Seems to me like D needs a major rehash of its visibility rules...


-- 
Tomasz Stachowiak  /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/