DIP22 : Private symbol visibility

[Dicebot]

On Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 03:54:53 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> 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 ?

Yes, Timons example has convinced me with no doubts. I never 
wanted to use static that much to be honest, just avoid 
introduction of new attribute.

Regarding private as internal by default - please look at those 
examples: 
http://forum.dlang.org/post/irrbdrxordjawkryvrub@forum.dlang.org 
If we force internal linkage of private unless marked as export, 
it will break code like in case 2 or require some weird mangling 
hacks like in C/C++. I do not feel that it is justified, as those 
2 concepts are rather different anyway. But it may be an option, 
need to evaluate all consequences though.