Difference between revisions of "DIP22"
m (→Description) |
|||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
A private symbol will not interact with other modules. | A private symbol will not interact with other modules. | ||
| − | In case look-up for a symbol fails the compiler might suggest private symbols similar to how spell checking | + | In case look-up for a symbol fails the compiler might suggest private symbols similar to how spell checking works. |
* The least protected symbol determines the visibility for an overload set. | * The least protected symbol determines the visibility for an overload set. | ||
Revision as of 20:24, 20 December 2013
| Title: | Private symbol visibility |
|---|---|
| DIP: | 22 |
| Version: | 2 |
| Status: | Draft |
| Created: | 2013-01-28 |
| Last Modified: | 2013-12-20 |
| Author: | Михаил Страшун (m.strashun gmail.com) (Dicebot) |
| Links: | Access specifiers and visibility : data gathered before creating proposal |
Contents
Changelog
Version 2
- Proposals related to internal linkage separated to another DIP22.1
- Added .tupleof to trait-like exclusions
- Removed proposal to change an error message
Abstract
This proposal attempts to solve one of important issues with current protection attribute design: senseless name clashes between private and public symbols. So change of private related name resolution rules is proposed.
Rationale
private is an encapsulation tool. If it is not intended to be used by "outsiders", it should not interfere with them at all. It creates no new limitations and reduces amount of code breakage by changes in other modules.
Description
- Private restricts the visibility of a symbol.
A private symbol will not interact with other modules. In case look-up for a symbol fails the compiler might suggest private symbols similar to how spell checking works.
- The least protected symbol determines the visibility for an overload set.
After overload resolution an access check will be performed. Thereby overload resolution is independent of look-up origin.
- Meta programming tools like
__traitsand .tupleof can access private symbols.
This is necessary for some generic code, e.g. serialization.
- All changes apply for modules as well as for classes.
Protection has module granularity so looking up private members of a base class from a different module follows the same rules as accessing other private symbols from a different module. Additionally protected does allows access from derived classes but not from other modules.
- Alias protection overrides the protection of the aliased symbol.
A public alias to a private symbol makes the symbol accessibly through the alias.
other protection attribute changes
- public stays the same
- package matches private changes from the point of view of other packages
- extern stays the same
- protected matches private changes, descendants still treat protected symbols as public ones. It is a rare guest in idiomatic D code but does no harm and may be useful for transition from other languages.
other name resolution changes
- UFCS functions should also take priority over private class functions when names conflict
- alias this protection attribute overrides protection attribute of aliased symbol ( not transitive )
Possible code breakage and solutions
No previously valid code will become illegal in normal use cases, as this proposal is more permissive than current behavior. As __traits and .tupleof will still work for private as before, any library that relies on them should not break.
Walters concerns
1. what access means at module scope
"Does this symbol is ignored when doing symbol name look-up?". All protection attributes boil down to simple answer (Yes/No) depending on symbol origins and place look-up is made from. In example:
Symbol origin: module a; Look-up origin: not module a; Symbol protection attribute: private Answer: No
2. at class scope
D minimal encapsulation unit is a module. Private class members are, technically, private module members and thus have the same behavior. Same for package and public. Protected is only special case that takes additional parameter into consideration.
3. at template mixin scope
No changes here. For templates look-up origin is definition module. For mixin templates - instantiation module. Other than that, usual rules apply.
4. backwards compatibility
See "Possible code breakage and solutions"
5. overloading at each scope level and the interactions with access
See "Description".
6. I'd also throw in getting rid of the "protected" access attribute completely, as I've seen debate over that being a useless idea
I have found no harm in keeping it. This will break code for sure and is irrelevant to this DIP topic.
7. there's also some debate about what "package" should mean
This is also irrelevant to this DIP. While there may be debates on meaning of package concept, meaning of package protection attribute is solid: encapsulation within set of modules belonging to same package, whatever they are.
Copyright
This document has been placed in the Public Domain.
