Am 05.12.2018 um 15:54 schrieb Allin Cottrell:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Sven Schreiber wrote:
>
> One step further in this experiment: It seems that when A depends on
> B, the private functions of package B are still _not_ available in
> package A. (Right?) This is not too surprising, but in my case
> creates a problem.
Right. I guess we could introduce a third category for packaged
functions: public, private and shared-with-pals. But I haven't yet
made any attempt to think through the implications of that. Or maybe
better, keep the public/private dichotomy but add a "hidden" flag that
would mean, don't expose this public function at user level.
No need to rush anything here.
-s