• Ben Jones (15/15) Jul 01 2021 I have a struct which I would like to have a public opIndex which
• Paul Backus (4/15) Jul 01 2021 Overload resolution does not take visibility (i.e., `private`)

Ben Jones <fake fake.fake> writes:

I have a struct which I would like to have a public opIndex which 
returns by value (so client code can't modify my internal array), 
and a private version which allows the implementing code to 
modify stuff with `this[whatever] = whatever`.

I tried to to write 2 versions of opIndex:

```
public Type opIndex(IndexType x) const {... }
//and
private Type ref opIndex(IndexType x) { ... }
```

which doesn't seem to work because client code that has a 
non-const reference to my container tries to use the private 
non-const version and triggers a `not accessible` error.  Is 
there a way to do this with overloads, or will I need to just 
pick a different name for the private version?

Paul Backus <snarwin gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 20:23:41 UTC, Ben Jones wrote:
 I tried to to write 2 versions of opIndex:

 ```
 public Type opIndex(IndexType x) const {... }
 //and
 private Type ref opIndex(IndexType x) { ... }
 ```

 which doesn't seem to work because client code that has a 
 non-const reference to my container tries to use the private 
 non-const version and triggers a `not accessible` error.  Is 
 there a way to do this with overloads, or will I need to just 
 pick a different name for the private version?

Overload resolution does not take visibility (i.e., `private`) 
into account. So yes, you will have to pick a different name for 
the private version.