From D Wiki
Revision as of 14:58, 4 February 2013 by Dicebot (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search
Title: Private symbol visibility
DIP: 22
Version: 2
Status: Draft
Created: 2013-01-28
Last Modified: 2013-02-04
Author: Михаил Страшун (m.strashun gmail.com) (Dicebot)
Links: Access specifiers and visibility : data gathered before creating proposal


Version 2

  • Proposals related to internal linkage separated to another DIP
  • Added .tupleof to trait-like exclusions
  • Removed proposal to change an error message


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.


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.


  • All changes are same for both classes and modules: it breaks no code but leaves consistent approach.
  • Private symbol look-up with no overloads in action stays the same: error message about access.
  • Overload resolution takes place after protection attribute questions are settled. private symbols do not take part in overload resolution.
  • As privates are already non-virtual, override resolution does not need to change in this regard.
  • All __traits still show private symbols. Those are advanced user tools and having this may be essential to library code. Same goes for access via .tupleof.

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

original comment

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.


This document has been placed in the Public Domain.