[Refactoring] around protection code fixed in the PR #3651

[9rnsr]

Tweak code style, slim up code logic, and a trivial bug fix.

@Dicebot I found two questions while refactoring.

1. How __traite(getProtection) should print the new protection package(names)?
2. How should the JSON property protection print package(names)?

[mihails-strasuns]

Is there any reason why formatting used by https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/blob/master/src/attrib.c#L617 is not suitable?

[mihails-strasuns]

Though now that I think about it __traits should be kept to return plain "package" string even if explicit identifiers are present for backwards compatibility reasons. I don't know how much of a concern it is for JSON output.

[9rnsr]

Is there any reason why formatting used by https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/blob/master/src/attrib.c#L617 is not suitable?

Unused parameter name might be warned when dmd code is compiled by non-dmc compiler with extra warning options.

[9rnsr]

Though now that I think about it __traits should be kept to return plain "package" string even if explicit identifiers are present for backwards compatibility reasons.

Make sense.

I don't know how much of a concern it is for JSON output.

For backward compatibility, keeping protection property may be better. And for the new package(names), we can add one more JSON property, eg. from package(foo.bar.baz):

   protection: "package",
   protecionPackage: "foo.bar.baz"  // new

[mihails-strasuns]

For backward compatibility, keeping protection property may be better. And for the new package(names), we can add one more JSON property, eg. from package(foo.bar.baz)

Sounds good.

[9rnsr]

I filed the issue in bugzilla: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13384

[9rnsr]

I resolved conflicts. Ready to merge.

[mihails-strasuns]

LGTM but no dmd merge access :)

[9rnsr]

@Dicebot Thanks for your LGTM.

[9rnsr]

Auto-merge toggled on