We need an internal keyword.

[Laurent Tréguier]

On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 23:50:57 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 21:48:22 UTC, Laurent Tréguier 
> wrote:
>> On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 17:09:05 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> It's not "my" solution. It's D's solution. I perfectly 
>> understand why you'd want this and I would probably make use 
>> of a private/internal difference myself if it was available.
>>
>> If you already know about this solution however, I don't even 
>> know why you're starting this thread; since changing the 
>> behavior of private would be a major language change breaking 
>> tons of existing codebases, plus it would require adding yet 
>> another keyword.
>>
>> Given that this conversation has happened before and things 
>> haven't changed, I'm very doubtful that it could happen at any 
>> point in time, sadly.
>
> If the cost out way the benefits then I simply introduce the 
> "strict" keyword to avoid code breakage, or introduce the 
> optional module scoping.
>
> -Alex

Technically, introducing any new keyword is also a potentially 
code breaking change. Any symbol named "strict" would have to be 
changed. This is why I'm doubtful that such a change would be 
accepted.