Does the 'package' protection attribute not work?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Sunday 07 August 2011 23:29:26 Robert Clipsham wrote:
> On 07/08/2011 22:18, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Personally, I don't see much point in using the package specifier when
> > you're not actually using a package hierarchy (you're just making it so
> > that everything but stuff which actually uses a hierarchy can use the
> > function - it would be a really weird distinction to make). So, it
> > wouldn't entirely surprise me if this is completely by design. It might
> > be a bug though.
> Except package is ~100% useless if you use an *actual* package
> hierarchy[1][2][3] (not like phobos which just drops everything in a
> top-level package).
> 
> > - Jonathan M Davis
> 
> [1] http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143
> [2] http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2529
> [3] http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=package

Ah. Then package is horribly broken at the moment. Lovely. I guess that that 
just goes to show that it's not used heavily or there would be a lot more 
complaints about it.

- Jonathan M Davis