DIP22 - private symbol visibility

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:13:30 -0400, Dicebot <m.strashun at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, 4 June 2013 at 18:33:21 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Since protected access is actually ESSENTIAL in OOP (at least, some  
>> form of virtual non-public function access, private is not virtual, so  
>> it would be disastrous to remove protected), I am wondering whether  
>> Walter really meant "package", as that has very little utility.
>
> "package" may become quite useful once we have better package. It allows  
> to have some local "utility" module used by specific package but not  
> generic enough in global so that it won't cause name collision (after  
> DIP22 is implemented, of course).

Sure, but I'm trying to read the comment in the context it was in.   
Certainly, if Daniel's patch to allow package imports is accepted, then  
package becomes almost essential for splitting up a module :)

But at the time this comment was made, none of that was on the table.  And  
removing protected would be disastrous.  I can't fathom why he said  
protected should be removed.  Which is why I hypothesized that he really  
meant package.  But I'd rather just let Walter explain what he meant at  
this point...

-Steve