Do non-member functions improve encapsulation in D?

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 4/21/14, 1:49 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> On Sunday, 20 April 2014 at 20:36:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 4/20/14, 12:11 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
>>> The fact that "private" really means "module private" in D means that
>>> any number of functions can break when a class/struct implementation
>>> changes.
>>
>> No, only those in that module. There's no change. -- Andrei
>
> Ok, so "any number" was poorly phrased.  What I meant was "a large
> number", because in my experience, modules tend to be quite large.

The point here is boundedness, i.e. whether stuff that's affected is 
within your control or not. The module you're working on is trivially 
"yours". Changes visible outside the module are "unbounded" because they 
affect present and future client code.

> I often wish "private" meant class private in D.

I think we're in good shape here.


Andrei