About Go, D module naming

[Walter Bright]

On 12/23/2012 4:03 AM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
> 	Because C++ *can* hide symbols from other modules with the
> anonymous namespace. D has no equivalent.

Everyone here has raised some good points. But this isn't a simple issue, so I 
suggest getting together and preparing a DIP. A DIP should address:

1. what access means at module scope
2. at class scope
3. at template mixin scope
4. backwards compatibility
5. overloading at each scope level and the interactions with access
6. I'd also throw in getting rid of the "protected" access attribute completely, 
as I've seen debate over that being a useless idea
7. there's also some debate about what "package" should mean

I.e. it should be a fairly comprehensive design addressing access, not just one 
aspect of it.