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

[forkit]

On Monday, 6 June 2022 at 04:01:27 UTC, norm wrote:
>
> This is such a non-issue, the mindset in D simply needs to be 
> encapsulation boundary is at the module level. All this huff 
> and puff of wasted of energy goes away at that point and your 
> designs will actually be much cleaner than in C++. This is a 
> pure ideological debate and it is actually very useful to have 
> module level encapsulation.
>

I agree that it's a non-issue, in that I haven't argued that 
isn't very useful
to have module level encapsulation.

Why ya'll always twist my argument to suit your own?

My argument is clear. It would be 'nice to have' 'an option' for 
there to be a genuine private component of a class. Not pseudo 
'private', but genuine @private.

An option to bring back an actual class type.

And can I remind everyone, yet again, my argument is NOT that we 
shouldn't have module level encapsulation!

Also, please don't tell me that I need to think like D wants me 
to think.

Cause, no, I don't. And I won't.