UFCS for D

[deadalnix]

Le 30/03/2012 07:29, Nick Sabalausky a écrit :
> "Steven Schveighoffer"<schveiguy at yahoo.com>  wrote in message
> news:kgwyziwlndczqtafbvrf at forum.dlang.org...
>> On Friday, 30 March 2012 at 01:55:23 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>
>>> Yea, that occurred to me, too.<wishful musing>I've been starting to
>>> think
>>> more and more that the "everything in a module is a friend" was a
>>> mistake,
>>> and that we should have instead just had a "module" access specifier like
>>> we
>>> have "package".</wishful musing>
>>
>> I don't think it was a mistake, it makes perfect sense to me.  On the
>> other hand, I fully understand why Meyers' prescription is useful for
>> humongous code bases.  However, I don't see this causing much trouble for
>> code I write.
>>
>> For instance, you have two classes you may have put into the same module
>> because they are categorically related (not necessarily friends in C++
>> terms).  It's highly unlikely that you "accidentally" access private
>> information across the classes.  So how much time is "wasted" checking the
>> other class for external references?  Probably none.
>>
>
> Large portions of D's access specifiers were completely unenforced for a
> long time and it never caused me much trouble. Doesn't mean they didn't
> still need to enforced.
>
>

Because projects were small.