About Go, D module naming

Walter Bright newshound2 at digitalmars.com
Sat Dec 22 00:21:33 PST 2012


On 12/21/2012 11:23 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> But we _want_ that. The fact that inaccessible functions are even considered
> in overload sets is horrible. That's precisely the problem. No inaccessible
> functions should be in overload sets. Otherwise, simply adding a private
> function to a module can break code elsewhere. I don't see _any_ benefit in
> having inaccessible functions be in overload sets. It's leaking implementation
> details outside of the scope that they're in and breaking code elsewhere when
> changes are made. What do you think is so desirable about having inaccessible
> functions in overload sets?


It's that way in C++ mainly so that it doesn't make the already complex 
overloading system even more so. And in 25 years of working with C++, I've never 
seen this make anyone's list of horrible things about C++.



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list