About Go, D module naming

[Rob T]

On Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 08:47:44 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> Pretty much every time that this issue comes up, people are 
> surprised by the
> fact that private symbols aren't hidden and pretty much no one 
> wants them to
> be in overload sets. I think that you're the only one that I've 
> seen post that
> they thought that the current behavior is a good idea 
> (certainly, anyone who
> agrees with you is in the minority or is silent on the issue). 
> What we
> currently have leaks implementation detalis and thus causes 
> code breakage when
> the implementation is changed. It needs to be fixed.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

I had no idea this was going on. If "private" symbols are not 
really private then they shouldn't be called private because that 
is very misleading and can lead to subtle mistakes that will be 
difficult to understand and avoid.

When I've defined something to be private, I really expect it to 
be private to the outside, or at best a friend within the same 
module.

--rt