On Tue, 10 Nov 2026 at 20:45, Ville Voutilainen
<ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2026 at 20:33, Tony V E via SG7 <sg7_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm not quite up to date on the proposal and syntax, but the principle is that anything "dangerous" needs to be easily visible/auditable. ie greppable
> >
> > const_cast, reinterpret_cast are easily seen in even a skimmed code review.
> > And are greppable *with 0 false positives*.
> >
> > Anything that breaks access controls should be the same - easily greppable with 0 false positives. And by easily I mean don't make me use a regex.
> >
> > The very first SG7 (an evening session run by Chandler) voted on access control, and there was barely consensus to even allow reflection of private members at all (waaay less consensus than, say, contracts).
> >
> > The compromise was the promise that breaking access control would be obvious and greppable.
>
> Yeah, you're not quite up to date. This was pointed out in the CD
> ballot

I mean, before the CD, actually.