peterbourgon
simplest and most direct solution
In other words: treat it like a bug in the go tool that it doesn't let this compile, and just fix the bug.
This is a vote against the magically prohibitions that make vendored libs off limits. It's a filesystem path, just read the code from it. Leave it up to the library author to expose or hide as they wish.
After reflecting on rsc's comment here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang-dev/WebP4dLV1b0/Lhk4hpwJEgAJ
Also, vendored code is a private copy of something. That is, "vendor" is explicitly "internal" as well. We very much do not want one project importing another project's vendored copy of a third project.
I gently suggest that this is root of the problem. Combining vendoring and internal protection, when they are actually orthogonal concerns, not always completely aligned, has created problems.
@glycerine these are not actual solutions, but "ideas" / "proposals" about how the problem could be fixed.
these are not actual solutions, but "ideas" / "proposals" about how the problem could be fixed.
@marcosnils this is a non-contributory comment on your part. Please refrain from these in the future. Instead let us focus on the engineering evaluations of pluses and minus of the options. Debating the semantics and connotations of words like "solution" versus "idea" versus "proposal" only detracts from actually addressing the real problem, and is of zero interest to all readers actually concerned with the problem.
this is a non-contributory comment on your part. Please refrain from these in the future. Instead let us focus on the engineering evaluations of pluses and minus of the options. Debating the semantics and connotations of words like "solution" versus "idea" versus "proposal" only detracts from actually addressing the real problem, and is of zero interest to all readers actually concerned with the problem.
I apologize, I'm not native english speaker and my intention wasn't to attack your comment. I'm just saying that if this gets merged under the "Solutions" section it might bring confusion to other people (like it did to me) as they might think that these are actual "possible" solutions.
Maybe it's better to add a different ideas/proposals section to clarify that what you're describing here is not currently possible.