"private:" remains in effect after end of containing attribute{}

[janderson]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>>
>> I believe this is because it *should* say: "affects all declarations
>> until the end of the scope", and "final { ... }" doesn't introduce a 
>> scope.
> 
> These non-scope curly braces have always made me uneasy.  Makes it 
> difficult for my C++-adjusted eyes to tell at a glance what's still 
> active and what's not.  I guess C++ has the "namespace {}" non-scope 
> block, but that's only used at the top level scope so use cases can't 
> get too complicated.
> 
> As for an alternative, I guess you could play around with alternate 
> block delimiters for non-scope blocks
> 
> static if (is(foo==bar)) <<
>     writefln("hello world")
>  >>
> 
> static if (is(foo==bar)) :{
>     writefln("hello world")
> }:
> 
> static if (is(foo==bar)) |{
>     writefln("hello world")
> }|
> 
> static if (is(foo==bar)) ::
>     writefln("hello world")
> ::
> 
> I kind of like ':{ }:'  The colons are like a dotted line, a 1-D sieve 
> if you will, indicating that things can 'pass through' this block.  Also 
> meshes well with the non-scoping tags like "private:"
> 
> You could phase it in with three-step plan:
> 1) add :{ }: (or whatever) as an alternate syntax which can be used for 
> "non-scope block" in the current non-scope contexts (static if, version, 
> public etc)
> 
> 2) deprecate/warn about uses of plain {} with non-scope blocks.
> 
> 3) make plain {} with non-scope blocks an error.
> 
> 4) Finally, reintroduce the ability to use {} with things like static 
> if, but this time have them really create a scope (where a scope makes 
> sense). This way we can ultimately get back to the shiny happy rule of 
> '{ }' always makes a scope whenever it can.
> 
> On the other hand, no one else seems to be bothered by this but me.   I 
> thought I'd get this off my chest anyway.  :-)
> 
> --bb

This is a good idea.  I've been bothered by the non-bracketable static 
ifs as well.  I think the smilely faces are the easiest to read.

-Joel