Weakening `private` to file scope about virgil HOT 4 CLOSED

Completed in 5a38d1f.

from virgil.

So like static in C/C++, but a bit nicer. Sounds good. One thought is if an import or module system is ever added, then it may be useful to have module-private functions/classes as well (something like Rust's pub(super)). But maybe that overcomplicates the design.

from virgil.

I've implemented this in a branch but haven't merged it yet because I am thinking about how it may slightly surprise some programmers.

E.g. a Java expert might be slightly surprised that private applies to the whole file (i.e. wider scope than assumed). However, I think this is alright because the Java tendency to split classes one-per-file means this isn't much different. I don't think it's too jarring if Virgil has a few more classes and related utility code per file, and it may even be cleaner for reasons above.

So I'll probably land this soon.

from virgil.

I've implemented this in a branch but haven't merged it yet because I am thinking about how it may slightly surprise some programmers.

Just need clear, concise documentation, I would say. static in C != static in Java for example and Java experts who came from C have managed.

from virgil.