Adding a new design constraint to D

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 13:06:02 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> Bar has the *public* interface of Foo, true, but it does not 
> have the private one. The private one is internal to Foo, so to 
> get at it through an instance of Bar, then Bar either has to be 
> in the same module as Foo, or you have to convert the instance 
> to a Foo first.

This isn't exactly the end of the universe, but I don't see how 
shadowing public members is better than shadowing private members.

You end up with the same issues. If D was principled about this, 
should it not prevent shadowing of public members?

As it is, "private" in D is more than an access restriction, you 
also change the lookup rules.

(Clearly not the end of the world, as you would typically not 
write such code.)