Does the 'package' protection attribute not work?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-08-08 00:29, 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
>
>

In addition to that a method declared as "package" won't be virtual.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg