Module-level privacy

[KingJoffrey]

On Sunday, 13 May 2018 at 05:11:16 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.

First, this thread was about extending the capabilities of 
classes in D with some new attribute/capability - sealed.

I thought it was first important to point out, in this thread, as 
opposed to a separate thread, that classes in D are already 
problematic, because modules do not respect the encapsulation 
boundaries of classes, and any discussion about further extending 
classes should be approached with great caution - because the 
problem will only become even more entrenched.

Second, writing a DIP is pointless, since Walter likes the idea 
that the module doesn't protect the encapsulation boundary of the 
class. Now if Walter thinks that's fine, what is a DIP going to 
do? I mean really. I have better things to do.

Third, those who responded to my caution are the ones that should 
have created a separate thread, not me.

Finally (and I do mean finally), my concern about the loss of the 
encapsulation boundary of classes in D, has a very real impact on 
the quality and maintainability of software systems developed in 
D. That the designer of D apparently thinks otherwise, baffles me.