• Andrei Alexandrescu (6/6) Sep 24 2009 In Java, "protected"-level protection implies package-level protection
• Jeremie Pelletier (5/13) Sep 24 2009 I make a clear distinction between 'protected' which can be accessed by
• bearophile (5/10) Sep 24 2009 If you are interested in Java Packages you can also take a look at Java ...
• Jarrett Billingsley (8/13) Sep 24 2009 Under the current implementation, if protected implied package, all
• Denis Koroskin (3/18) Sep 24 2009 Can't agree more!
• Don (9/17) Sep 25 2009 Java might be a good source of inspiration.
• Max Samukha (7/27) Sep 25 2009 What about deprecating "package" and employing "protected" to mean

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

In Java, "protected"-level protection implies package-level protection 
(see e.g. 
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/accesscontrol.html). 
Should we copy that behavior in D, or take advantage of the package 
keyword and require it as in "package protected"?


Andrei

Jeremie Pelletier <jeremiep gmail.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 In Java, "protected"-level protection implies package-level protection 
 (see e.g. 
 http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/accesscontrol.html). 
 Should we copy that behavior in D, or take advantage of the package 
 keyword and require it as in "package protected"?
 
 
 Andrei

I make a clear distinction between 'protected' which can be accessed by 
any subclasses no matter their modules or packages, and 'package' which 
is like public but for the current package only.

Jeremie

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu:

 In Java, "protected"-level protection implies package-level protection 
 (see e.g. 
 http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/accesscontrol.html). 
 Should we copy that behavior in D, or take advantage of the package 
 keyword and require it as in "package protected"?

If you are interested in Java Packages you can also take a look at Java
superpackages:
http://today.java.net/pub/a/today/2008/03/06/jsr-294-superpackages.html

Bye,
bearophile

Jarrett Billingsley <jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:
 In Java, "protected"-level protection implies package-level protection (see
 e.g.
 http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/accesscontrol.html).
 Should we copy that behavior in D, or take advantage of the package keyword
 and require it as in "package protected"?

Under the current implementation, if protected implied package, all
protected methods would suddenly become nonvirtual, since for some
reason, package is treated as a kind of 'private'. Not really what
you'd want, I think ;)

'package' should not conflate visibility and virtuality. If it didn't
do that, having protected imply package would be just fine.

"Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:36:46 +0400, Jarrett Billingsley  
<jarrett.billingsley gmail.com> wrote:

 On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
 <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:
 In Java, "protected"-level protection implies package-level protection  
 (see
 e.g.
 http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/accesscontrol.html).
 Should we copy that behavior in D, or take advantage of the package  
 keyword
 and require it as in "package protected"?

 Under the current implementation, if protected implied package, all
 protected methods would suddenly become nonvirtual, since for some
 reason, package is treated as a kind of 'private'. Not really what
 you'd want, I think ;)

 'package' should not conflate visibility and virtuality. If it didn't
 do that, having protected imply package would be just fine.

Can't agree more!

Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 In Java, "protected"-level protection implies package-level protection 
 (see e.g. 
 http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/accesscontrol.html). 
 Should we copy that behavior in D, or take advantage of the package 
 keyword and require it as in "package protected"?
 
 
 Andrei

Java might be a good source of inspiration.

Sorting out what 'package' should mean is one of the big remaining 
issues in D. The current 'package' is a broken implementation of a 
broken concept. As in one of the bugzilla bugs "package does not work at 
all". But even if it did work as advertised, it would still suck.

Can we announce it as deprecated until we work out what to do with it? 
We should discourage everyone from using it right now, it's completely 
broken.

Max Samukha <spambox d-coding.com> writes:

Don wrote:

 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
 In Java, "protected"-level protection implies package-level protection
 (see e.g.
 http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/java/javaOO/accesscontrol.html).
 Should we copy that behavior in D, or take advantage of the package
 keyword and require it as in "package protected"?
 
 
 Andrei

 
 Java might be a good source of inspiration.
 
 Sorting out what 'package' should mean is one of the big remaining
 issues in D. The current 'package' is a broken implementation of a
 broken concept. As in one of the bugzilla bugs "package does not work at
 all". But even if it did work as advertised, it would still suck.
 
 Can we announce it as deprecated until we work out what to do with it?
 We should discourage everyone from using it right now, it's completely
 broken.

What about deprecating "package" and employing "protected" to mean 
"accessible from the package, its sub-packages and, if it is a class member, 
from subclasses in other packages"? The model would be almost equivalent to 
Java's except we don't need Java's "package-private" (no modifier) because 
of D's "public by default, private is accessible from anywhere inside the 
module".