Module-level privacy

rikki cattermole rikki at cattermole.co.nz
Sun May 13 05:48:35 UTC 2018


On 13/05/2018 5:11 PM, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
> On Sunday, 13 May 2018 at 02:36:28 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
>> On Sunday, 13 May 2018 at 02:10:31 UTC, Uknown wrote:
>>> And please, if this bothers you so much, start a new thread. You're 
>>> spamming someone else's feature request by going off topic.
>>
>> yeah, I know how much *you* (and many others) would like to shutdown 
>> any discussion about the absurd way in which classes are treated in D. 
>> It's a touchy topic it seems.
> 
> Nobody's getting worked up about this, and nobody's telling you to stop 
> talking about it. There have been suggestions that you write up a DIP 
> for it. This is a standard process for suggesting improvements to D.
> 
> I have a draft DIP hanging around on my hard drive relating to named 
> function parameters, for instance. It discusses:
> 
> * The thing to be changed
> * Why I think it should be changed
> * Examples of how the status quo causes problems
> * How I want code to work in the future
> * Examples of what I want code to look like
> * How other languages handle this thing
> 
> That's just due diligence for nontrivial enhancement requests. And named 
> function parameters is a feature with probably very little opposition 
> and moderate support.
> 
>> so take your own advice. create a new thread, and have a go at me 
>> there instead.
> 
> It should be as easy as changing the "Subject" field on the reply 
> screen. It would have been gracious of you to do this, all things 
> considered.
> 
>> When someone creates a topic about extending the capacity of classes 
>> in D, I will always feel the urge to remind them, that classes in D 
>> are a complete joke - and that you shouldn't bother using them. Better 
>> to use another language that has the capacity to respect the 
>> encapsulation barrier of the class.
> 
> Your complaint is about protection, not about classes. It should affect 
> all definitions. Perhaps you simply don't expect type-level 
> encapsulation for structs and top-level declarations.

On that note we should chat[0].
Preferably IRC or Discord.

[0] https://github.com/rikkimax/DIPs/blob/named_args/DIPs/DIP1xxx-RC.md


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list