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

[forkit]

On Sunday, 5 June 2022 at 00:30:14 UTC, forkit wrote:
>
> Again (how many time do I have to say this??), my argument is 
> not favouring one or the other. It's favouring the 'option' to 
> have both.

Well, to be clear, both exist already (i.e. one class per module, 
and it's done).

But my argument is to have both in the context of a module that 
contains a class, as well as other code (as I've made very clear 
from the beginning).

I don't want to have to manually audit a whole module, just 
becasue it contains code other than a class, and therefore, there 
is no way to ensure the invariants of that class are being 
upheld, without manually inspecting all code in that module. This 
is my point. I should not have to do this manually, and I do not 
want to 'forced' by the language to put each class in its own 
module, because of this.

That's the end of my discussion on this topic ;-)