DIP 45 - approval discussion

[Benjamin Thaut]

Am 10.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Timon Gehr:
> On 11/10/2013 12:42 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
>> Am 08.11.2013 20:32, schrieb Walter Bright:
>>  > It looks pretty good, except I have serious reservations about the
>> -lib switch proposed behavior:
>> I'm glad you like the proposal.
>>
>>  >
>>  > 1. It's too blunt. A user could conceivably want to export some
>> symbols and not others. This is all or nothing.
>> A user is already able to control which symbols are exported and which
>> are not by using the "export" attribute. ...
>
> Using the export attribute on some member exports the entire module
> info. If I understand this right, the module info will contain
> information also about non-exported members of the module and therefore
> even non-exported members will be accessible from outside. Is this correct?

AFAIK the module info only contains information about the (shared) 
module constructors and destructors. And no, non exported symbols will 
not be acessible because the neccessary accessors are not generated for 
them (at least on windows).