Am 10.02.2013 11:21, schrieb Dicebot:
> On Saturday, 9 February 2013 at 22:54:09 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2013-02-09 21:51, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>>> I think that's asking for confusion to have different visibility rules
>>> inside and outside typeof().
>>>
>>> The typical way to access private members when really needed is via a
>>> reflection mechanism, and we already have a way to do that as two
>>> people have mentioned.
>>
>> Couldn't typeof() be considered part of a reflection mechanism?
>
> May be, but definitely not an advanced librar'ish one - contrary to
> .tupleof and some __traits is is a pretty common guest in user code.

Really? I'm using typeof all over the place in my user code.

On Sunday, 10 February 2013 at 10:22:59 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> Really? I'm using typeof all over the place in my user code.

That is exactly what I have just said :) And reason why it should behave according to usual protection attribute rules.

Am 10.02.2013 11:55, schrieb Dicebot:
> On Sunday, 10 February 2013 at 10:22:59 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
>> Really? I'm using typeof all over the place in my user code.
>
> That is exactly what I have just said :) And reason why it should behave
> according to usual protection attribute rules.

Oh ok, then I misunderstood your argument.