Functions with package protection

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Christopher Wright <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>
>> grauzone wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry to dig up this old post, but I still don't understand why
>>>> 'package' functions cannot be virtual? Is there a good reason for this? I
>>>> can't see why we can't use polymorphism on 'package' functions!
>>>>
>>>> Is there way to make it virtual without making it public? (e.g. a
>>>> 'virtual' keyword?)
>>>
>>> "package" needs to fixes:
>>> - package methods must be allowed to be virtual
>>> - package methods must be allowed to be accessed from sub packages
>>> (module a.b.x should be able to access package identifiers declared in
>>> module a.y)
>>>
>>> I don't understand why these fixes applied, especially because they are
>>> completely backward compatible.
>>
>> "package methods must be allowed to be virtual" isn't
>> backwards-compatible. This code will work differently if package methods
>> were made virtual:
>
> That's a larger problem, I think: you can override methods silently. The
> override keyword should be required.

It is in D2.