visibility vs. accessibility of protected symbols

[Martin Nowak]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:07:20 +0100, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>  
wrote:

> On Sunday, February 12, 2012 19:32:28 David Nadlinger wrote:
>> On 2/12/12 7:28 PM, Martin Nowak wrote:
>> > The shallow distinction of visibility vs. accessibility breaks the
>> > module system because
>> > one can't safely add a private symbol without possibly affecting every
>> > dependent module.
>> > Thus we're back at using underscore names to protect from that.
>>
>> Yes, and this is exactly why I argued to disregard invisible symbols
>> during overload resolution in the past. Walter seems to be firmly
>> convinced that the current solution is the right thing to do, but I
>> can't recall what his reasons were.
>
> I'm not 100% sure that it's a good idea, depending on what the exact side
> effects are, but in principle, I'd love it if private symbols were  
> invisible to
> other modules.
>
> Now, this does _not_ fly with private being overridable, as TDPL claims  
> it
> should be. But I've already argued that that was a mistake due to the
> performance issues that it causes. I'm not sure what Walter's current  
> plans
> with that are though.
>
Can you elaborate on what issues you see with NVI. After all it's only the  
final public
method that needs to call the virtual private methods.