Adding a new design constraint to D

[Jordan Wilson]

On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 22:26:18 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 11:12:59 UTC, Dennis wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 10:54:17 UTC, forkit wrote:
>>> you mean, like @mustuse ;-)
>>>
>>> a 'new' feature that I'll likely *never* have a need to use 
>>> btw.
>>
>> I don't think you have bad intentions, but this comes across 
>> as passive-aggresive to me. Just wanted to let you know.
>
> My point was, that 'part' of the argument he put forward does 
> not stand up to further scrutiny.
>
> Twisting that around to suggest I'm being passive-aggressive, 
> is nonsense.

In the link you posted about passive-aggressive behavior, there 
is the following section: 3. Diverting The Subject.

You asked what the cost is of adding a 'private(scope)' feature.
Paul then replied about opportunity costs.
You then mentioned @mustuse, in a way that could be construed as 
mildly disparaging regarding it's own opportunity cost, in order 
dismiss his answer as being valid.
Dennis considered this passive-aggressive; he might be wrong, but 
not nonsensical.

Personally, I'm more likely to use 'private(scope)' than 
@mustuse. I'm also more likely to understand 'private(scope)' 
better than @mustuse. These two facts have nothing to do with the 
question "does private(scope) justify the cost".

Jordan