Re: Feedback on Átila's Vision for D

[drug]

On 10/18/19 5:37 PM, Aliak wrote:
> On Friday, 18 October 2019 at 07:56:26 UTC, drug wrote:
>> 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:
>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> 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?
> 
> My position on what? No private access is the consequence of moving a 
> function out of a module.
  That's probably my misunderstanding but I think you took a bad example 
to show the problem.
You state that:
1) it is bad that `doAmazingWork` has private access to class A members 
if it is in one module with class A
2) it is bad that `doAmazingWork` has no private access to class A 
members if it is in an other module than class A

In my opinion these statement are contradictory