Re: Feedback on Átila's Vision for D

[drug]

On 10/17/19 11:48 PM, aliak wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 18:00:39 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> On Thursday, 17 October 2019 at 16:50:15 UTC, Rumbu wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Also by design, unless you want something like Rust's traits or 
>>>> Haskell's typeclasses. But none of this is OOP.
>>>
>>> Being by design, doesn't mean it's correct.
>>>
>>> I'm starting to understand Chris.
>>
>> Private to the module *is* correct in D.
>>
>> http://dlang.org/blog/2018/11/06/lost-in-translation-encapsulation/
> 
> That's debatable: 
> https://github.com/aliak00/d-isms/blob/master/da-faq/06-access-levels.md

You complain that `doAmazingStuff` can access private members of class A 
if this function and this class are placed together in one module and 
continue complain that if you put that class in its own module then 
`doAmazingStuff` now cannot access private members of A and isn't a 
"first class" citizen of class A. Could you explain you position clearly?