• 12345swordy (9/9) Oct 24 2018 It says here that:
• 12345swordy (2/11) Oct 25 2018 Well I don't think there no harm of doing so.
• Steven Schveighoffer (6/18) Oct 25 2018 Sorry, I'm not sure what the question is.
• 12345swordy (4/24) Oct 25 2018 The package visibility attribute. It is an extension of private,
• Steven Schveighoffer (8/33) Oct 25 2018 I think what you are asking is for a "package protected" attribute that

12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:

It says here that:
"package extends private so that package members can be accessed 
from code in other modules that are in the same package. If no 
identifier is provided, this applies to the innermost package 
only, or defaults to private if a module is not nested in a 
package."

Can this be extended to the protected visibility attribute?
If not, then does it need an DIP to do so?

-Alex

12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 23:36:56 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
 It says here that:
 "package extends private so that package members can be 
 accessed from code in other modules that are in the same 
 package. If no identifier is provided, this applies to the 
 innermost package only, or defaults to private if a module is 
 not nested in a package."

 Can this be extended to the protected visibility attribute?
 If not, then does it need an DIP to do so?

 -Alex

Well I don't think there no harm of doing so.

Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:

On 10/25/18 12:45 PM, 12345swordy wrote:
 On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 23:36:56 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
 It says here that:
 "package extends private so that package members can be accessed from 
 code in other modules that are in the same package. If no identifier 
 is provided, this applies to the innermost package only, or defaults 
 to private if a module is not nested in a package."

 Can this be extended to the protected visibility attribute?
 If not, then does it need an DIP to do so?

 
 Well I don't think there no harm of doing so.

Sorry, I'm not sure what the question is.

What is "this" and how is it being extended to protected?

FYI, I didn't know that you could package something to a specific 
identifier, interesting.

-Steve

12345swordy <alexanderheistermann gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 25 October 2018 at 19:48:43 UTC, Steven 
Schveighoffer wrote:
 On 10/25/18 12:45 PM, 12345swordy wrote:
 On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 23:36:56 UTC, 12345swordy 
 wrote:
 It says here that:
 "package extends private so that package members can be 
 accessed from code in other modules that are in the same 
 package. If no identifier is provided, this applies to the 
 innermost package only, or defaults to private if a module is 
 not nested in a package."

 Can this be extended to the protected visibility attribute?
 If not, then does it need an DIP to do so?

 
 Well I don't think there no harm of doing so.

 Sorry, I'm not sure what the question is.

 What is "this" and how is it being extended to protected?

 FYI, I didn't know that you could package something to a 
 specific identifier, interesting.

 -Steve

The package visibility attribute. It is an extension of private, 
which means that it is not inheritable.

Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:

On 10/25/18 3:53 PM, 12345swordy wrote:
 On Thursday, 25 October 2018 at 19:48:43 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 On 10/25/18 12:45 PM, 12345swordy wrote:
 On Wednesday, 24 October 2018 at 23:36:56 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
 It says here that:
 "package extends private so that package members can be accessed 
 from code in other modules that are in the same package. If no 
 identifier is provided, this applies to the innermost package only, 
 or defaults to private if a module is not nested in a package."

 Can this be extended to the protected visibility attribute?
 If not, then does it need an DIP to do so?

 Well I don't think there no harm of doing so.

 Sorry, I'm not sure what the question is.

 What is "this" and how is it being extended to protected?

 FYI, I didn't know that you could package something to a specific 
 identifier, interesting.

 
 The package visibility attribute. It is an extension of private, which 
 means that it is not inheritable.

I think what you are asking is for a "package protected" attribute that 
acts like protected, but ONLY for modules inside the given package, right?

You would need new syntax for this, for sure. So I think a DIP might be 
required. There is a problem with having package protected be something 
different, because right now a visibility attribute overrides, not adds 
to, an existing attribute.

-Steve