'package' and access from subpackages..

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Christian Kamm" <kamm-incasoftware at removethis.de> wrote in message 
news:g99i3t$2gfj$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> If I were able to access package members from superpackages, however, 
>> this
>> would be easy.  It also makes sense -- in the above hierarchy,
>> pack1.pack2.a *is in* the package pack1, although indirectly, so it 
>> should
>> have access to pack1.c's package members.
>
>
> I agree and from a short look at the sources, it should be an easy change 
> to
> access.c:hasPackageAccess.
>
> 1) Could this change break any existing code? I don't think so, but am not
> entirely sure.

It would make what's currently an error not an error, so no, I don't think 
so.

> 2) If it can't break any code, can we get it applied D1?

For some reason W doesn't seem to agree.  He doesn't want *any* changes 
going into D1, breaking or not.

But if it's not specified, I don't know how you can call it a "change," 
simply a "clarification."  I.e. .tupleof used on structs with private 
members (which used to give an error in D1.  I was unable to convince W when 
he fixed this in D2, but for some reason, he went ahead and changed it when 
someone else filed a bug report, go figure.)