Shouldn't private methods be virtual too?

[Robert Fraser]

Michel Fortin wrote:
> The following example prints "Base.foo" (using GDC 0.24), even though we 
> have a Derived object and Derived's foo is declared as overriding 
> Base's. Is that expected behaviour?
> 
>     module test.privatevirtualfunction;
> 
>     class Base {
>         private void foo() { writefln("Base.foo"); }
>     }
> 
>     class Derived : Base {
>         override private void foo() { writefln("Derived.foo"); }
>     }
>     
>     int main(char[][] args) {
>         Base base = new Derived;
>         base.foo();
>         return 0;
>     }
> 
> I understand that private currently makes the method non-virtual. I 
> think this would be fine with the C++ private concept where it limits 
> the member's usage to the current class, but I believe in D, where 
> private only limits usage to the current module, you should be able to 
> override that method in any class defined in the same module. If that's 
> not the case, then you should at the very least get an error with the 
> above code.
> 
> Making Base's method public or protected changes the output to 
> "Derived.foo" as I'd expect.

I agree, but last time I asked this it seemed like an unwinnable battle 
(everyone else said private should imply "final"). More controversial 
was whether "package" should imply "final" (which it does now, but I 
think it should not).