Should templates have the instantiating scope's protection access rights?

[ZombineDev via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 at 19:00:14 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 at 18:48:05 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
>> Also there could be code re-use wherever the access rights 
>> match. So if an argument is marked as opt-in, only the 
>> instantiation scope's access to that argument would need to be 
>> tied to the template instantiation. I suppose that means there 
>> would be 4 possible instantiations, one for private, package, 
>> protected, and public access.
>
> Actually scratch that, it would have to match on access rights 
> to the argument and any symbol accessible through the argument. 
> It would get even crazier on recursive instantiations, so I 
> think you are right, the template would have to be tied to the 
> original instantiation module. If the template instantiated any 
> other templates that had this behavior it would also have to be 
> tied to the original module. Sounds complicated.

Using mixin templates you can get the behavior you want to some 
extent, with exception that you need to type "mixin" in front 
when you're instantiating them.

I wonder if reusing the mixin statement for normal templates 
would be a good idea to reuse existing code while allowing access 
to private members.