Sealed classes - would you want them in D?

[KingJoffrey]

On Wednesday, 16 May 2018 at 05:59:17 UTC, Tobias Müller wrote:
> KingJoffrey <KingJoffrey at KingJoffrey.com> wrote:
>> The problem is not so much D, but that C++/Java/C# 
>> programmers, and many from other languages (Go, Rust....) will 
>> expect private to mean private...not private..depending on....
>
> Well, that's not entirely true.
> Visibility in Rust is similar to D.
> There's no one true language semantics that holds for all 
> languages. That's
> the point of having different languages.

Also, my point was not that different languages should not be 
different.

My point was to be aware of the potential for misunderstandings 
of what 'most' people would expect to hold true.

And that point comes back to the very reason I interjected into 
this discussion (some time back) - because someone though it 
might be a great idea to introduce a sealed class - but how many 
people would end up thinking that the keyword 'sealed' means 
"sealed as in Scala, not as in C#".

My point holds up, because 'most' (not all, sure) programmers use 
languages where terminology means the same thing. And I think D 
needs to be conscious of this when using well known 
terminologies/concepts, because what I like most about D, is that 
I can bring my existing knowledge from other mainstream 
langauges, and start using D productively, very quickly. I cannot 
say the same for Rust and Go. I almost DO have to go and read the 
spec before I start using it.