Why do private member variables behaved like protected in the same module when creating deriving class?

[Atila Neves]

On Monday, 29 October 2018 at 23:15:58 UTC, unprotected-entity 
wrote:
> On Monday, 29 October 2018 at 15:50:56 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
> wrote:
>>
> It's not (just) that I don't like it, it's that I don't like 
> not giving the programmer the tool to better encapsulate their 
> code (specifically classes) *within* a module.

You don't need to protect code in your module from other code in 
your module. If you do, put them in different modules.

> In D however, it's exactly how you're meant to do it - it's by 
> design - it's reaching out and saying, this is how you should 
> do it.

It _is_ how you should do it, but not with giant modules. Just 
have smaller modules.

>  D seems to be proud, that you cannot encapsulate a class, 
> within a module, from other code also in that module. If 
> C++/C#/Java took that view, imagine the outcry.

Java doesn't compare - every class is in its own file. If you 
want to write D code Java style, and have `private` work the same 
way, then have a class per module.

As for C++, one could argue that it encourages the practice of 
having source files implement
multiple classes, which is part of the reason anyone uses 
`friend` there anyway!

> And given what I've seen in phobos..well... I'm still looking 
> for the 'design'.

There are parts of Phobos that aren't very well designed, 
especially the older code. There are also parts that are great 
(std.experimental.allocator for instance).

> All I see are gigantic modules full of code...that does who 
> knows what to each other..cause they're all friends and can do 
> whatever they like to each other, in D.

Yeah, that's not good. But the barrier to change the standard 
library is higher so I'm mostly ok with that.