DIP22 : Private symbol visibility

[deadalnix]

On Tuesday, 29 January 2013 at 16:44:56 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 11:29 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>>> Fixing private is enough.
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> No need to screw this up.
>>
>> By the way, do you oppose exactly "static" keyword usage> or 
>> ability to
>> mark symbols for internal linkage at all? How about something 
>> like
>> @internal?
>
> I only oppose changing the meaning of "static". I do not have 
> any strong feelings about being able to mark symbols for 
> internal linkage, but I do not see why it is necessary. Can't a 
> compiler just mark all symbols for internal linkage that can be 
> marked such given the constraints you would impose on @internal 
> marked symbols?

I have to support that.

static have already quite a lot of different meaning in D, and 
adding yet a new one probably not a good idea. Especially when 
module level declaration are supposed to be static by default, so 
now they can be static static, which is clearly a bad idea.

Is the usage of export have been considered here ? private 
declaration are static/private, unless defined export ? Does that 
work ?