On Monday, 11 June 2018 at 15:41:57 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 4/11/18 3:13 PM, bauss wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 April 2018 at 17:58:25 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Sunday, April 08, 2018 13:00:02 bauss via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
[...]
I don't know. It could be argued either way. I think that the
logic as to why
[...]
The thing is, it makes no sense why it shouldn't be legal
since you can just cast to the base type, by that alone you're
escaping the restriction that it's supposed to have.
And it really goes against that private is module level.
If it was module level then you should be able to access the
member regardless of the reference to it.
Just going through old messages on the NG.
I filed a bug about a similar thing (calling private functions
instead of using private variables), but it seemed to be agreed
upon that this is expected behavior:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15897
You may find some more insight from reading that discussion. I
don't agree with the conclusion, as it is very surprising
behavior to me.
-Steve
It goes against everything OOP and it goes against D's own
private.
