public aliases to private/package symbols

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Nick Sabalausky" <a at a.a> wrote in message 
news:jfnag6$317n$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Martin Nowak" <dawg at dawgfoto.de> wrote in message 
> news:mailman.782.1327427928.16222.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>> Should aliases be allowed to raise the accessibility of a symbol?
>>
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4533
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6013
>
> Yes.
>

How else are you going to separate the interface for the internal 
implementation of a template from its for-public-consumption interface?

This whole issue is literally *NO* different from "Should a public 
pointer/reference be allowed to point to private data?" or "Should a public 
function be allowed to expose a private one?" The answer is: "Obviously 
yes".

I don't understand why anyone thinks this is any different just because 
they're aliases instead of pointers/references/functions/etc. All the 
arguments against public alias to private symbols apply equally to these 
questions too, and in those cases nobody would even question it. What is it 
about aliases that suddenly trips people up and makes them think the whole 
concept of accessibility should be flipped around on its head?