Using closure in function scope to make "real" private class members

[forkit]

On Saturday, 4 June 2022 at 12:28:41 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>
> 2) A solution exists for anyone who cares about that conceptual 
> difference. We don't need a new keyword/attribute to do 
> something you can already do.
>

Umm..no.

Once again, you're rephrasing my argument to suit you're agenda ( 
of sprouting the 'superior' approach of D).

If I could aready do what i want to do, I would not be discussing 
it.

I'd like the option to improve type soundness of a class, so that 
I can confidently have other code in the module, and thereby have 
the assurance that other code does not violate my class 
invariants.

I cannot currently do that in D.

It's a bit like having an invariant near the top of the module, 
that says x must not equal 0.

But 85 lines down in the code, someone has set x to 0.

An you're argument would be, hey, just put x in its own module 
then.