• Francesco Cattoglio (16/16) Jun 12 2014 Yesterday I discovered that a global static variable in D is just
• Kagamin (1/1) Jun 12 2014 Why private members can't have internal linkage?
• Francesco Cattoglio (4/5) Jun 12 2014 There has been some discussion about a few corner cases, see
• Dicebot (9/10) Jun 12 2014 tl; dr: because private provides zero guarantees that symbol
• Jacob Carlborg (4/5) Jun 12 2014 It's currently possible to access private symbols through pointers.
• Dicebot (4/8) Jun 12 2014 And aliases with different qualifiers. And via return values. And
• deadalnix (2/11) Jun 13 2014 http://blog.omega-prime.co.uk/?p=121
• deadalnix (2/6) Jun 13 2014 You don't need a symbol in the object file for that.

"Francesco Cattoglio" <francesco.cattoglio gmail.com> writes:

Yesterday I discovered that a global static variable in D is just 
a global variable, with no special rule about symbol visibility 
and such.

I've scrolled quickly through old discussions on the NG and read 
the relevant DIP: http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP22
It seems to me that nobody thought about reusing the module 
keyword for declaring symbols with internal linkage. It would 
look like:

file foo.d:
     module foo; // module declaration
     module uint cantSeeMe; // internal linkage attribute, hidden 
symbol
     private uint can_See_Me; // private, but symbol still visible

AFAIK, module keyword right now is only used for module 
declaration, and is not valid anywhere else. Would it make sense 
to use it in this context, too?

"Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:

Why private members can't have internal linkage?

"Francesco Cattoglio" <francesco.cattoglio gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 09:48:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 Why private members can't have internal linkage?

There has been some discussion about a few corner cases, see 
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/jlbsreudrapysiaetyrp forum.dlang.org?page=2#post-irrbdrxordjawkryvr
b:40forum.dlang.org 
and following posts.

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 09:48:30 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
 Why private members can't have internal linkage?

tl; dr: because private provides zero guarantees that symbol 
won't be referenced in ABI context. It only controls direct 
language level access.

It can possibly be done with analysis of all indirections but 
effort is not worth the gain.

I think getting --gc-sections working out of the box is more 
worthy goal ( unfortunately last PR from Martin had no practical 
effect here :( )

Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:

On 12/06/14 11:48, Kagamin wrote:
 Why private members can't have internal linkage?

It's currently possible to access private symbols through pointers.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 14:23:59 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 12/06/14 11:48, Kagamin wrote:
 Why private members can't have internal linkage?

 It's currently possible to access private symbols through 
 pointers.

And aliases with different qualifiers. And via return values. And 
with pretty much anything that does not require to type symbol 
identifier explicitly.

"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 14:48:41 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
 On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 14:23:59 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 12/06/14 11:48, Kagamin wrote:
 Why private members can't have internal linkage?

 It's currently possible to access private symbols through 
 pointers.

 And aliases with different qualifiers. And via return values. 
 And with pretty much anything that does not require to type 
 symbol identifier explicitly.

http://blog.omega-prime.co.uk/?p=121

"deadalnix" <deadalnix gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 12 June 2014 at 14:23:59 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
 On 12/06/14 11:48, Kagamin wrote:
 Why private members can't have internal linkage?

 It's currently possible to access private symbols through 
 pointers.

You don't need a symbol in the object file for that.