Problem with coupling shared object symbol visibility with protection

Martin Nowak via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sat Jan 31 04:07:07 PST 2015


On Saturday, 31 January 2015 at 09:25:10 UTC, Benjamin Thaut 
wrote:
> Well, export is going to remain transitive. So the first 
> approach is still going to work. The only difference is going 
> to be that you can "force export" private declarations. So for 
> most modules it is hopefully going to be enough to put "export 
> { }"  around the public part of the module and force export 
> some of the needed private declarations. For a module without 
> templates a single "export { }" should be enough.

That's probably how it should behave, though an attribute 
applying only to public members unless explicitly added is 
unprecedented. Still seems like the right choice here, but might 
require some additional compiler logic.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list