DIP 45 - approval discussion

[Timon Gehr]

On 11/10/2013 01:06 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> Am 10.11.2013 13:03, schrieb Timon Gehr:
>> On 11/10/2013 12:42 PM, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
>>> Am 08.11.2013 20:32, schrieb Walter Bright:
>>>  > It looks pretty good, except I have serious reservations about the
>>> -lib switch proposed behavior:
>>> I'm glad you like the proposal.
>>>
>>>  >
>>>  > 1. It's too blunt. A user could conceivably want to export some
>>> symbols and not others. This is all or nothing.
>>> A user is already able to control which symbols are exported and which
>>> are not by using the "export" attribute. ...
>>
>> Using the export attribute on some member exports the entire module
>> info. If I understand this right, the module info will contain
>> information also about non-exported members of the module and therefore
>> even non-exported members will be accessible from outside. Is this
>> correct?
>
> AFAIK the module info only contains information about the (shared)
> module constructors and destructors.  And no, non exported symbols will
> not be acessible because the neccessary accessors are not generated for
> them (at least on windows).

What about Object.factory?