package and virtual

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Thursday, March 01, 2012 21:19:04 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-03-01 14:43, Mike Parker wrote:
> > On 3/1/2012 4:26 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> >> On 2012-03-01 01:53, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>> package functions are currenly non-virtual.
> >>> 
> >>> The spec claims that "all non-sta­tic non-pri­vate non-tem­plate
> >>> mem­ber func­
> >>> tions are vir­tual," which would mean that package is supposed to be
> >>> virtual.
> >>> But from what I recall, the plan is to leave package as non-virtual.
> >>> So, is
> >>> that indeed the case and the spec needs to be fixed, or is package
> >>> going to be
> >>> made virtual at some point?
> >>> 
> >>> - Jonathan M Davis
> >> 
> >> Is anyone even using "package"? I've basically never used it.
> > 
> > I use it. Primarily for utility declarations shared among modules, but
> > not intended for the outside world. For example, DerelictGL's extension
> > loader. Incidentally, before reading this I just finished refactoring
> > another project to use some package-protected stuff. But I've never had
> > a need (yet) to override anything with package protection outside of the
> > same module.
> 
> I see, I see. I guess it's more used in Java because it's the default.

Well, it's kind of forced on you in Java when you want classes to interact 
without having the functions or variables involved be public, since all public 
classes must be in their own file. A lot of those cases can be covered in D by 
putting the classes in the same module. So, the value of package is definitely 
reduced in D, but it's not gone.

- Jonathan M Davis