Does the 'package' protection attribute not work?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 8/8/11 1:56 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> 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.

Ouch. Why is that? Seems like a bug.

Andrei