Adding a new design constraint to D

[Jordan Wilson]

On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 23:44:24 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 June 2022 at 23:31:35 UTC, forkit wrote:
>>
>> please review that part of his arguement again.
>
> to be specific, it was this part
>
> "The main cost is the opportunity cost [1]. Any effort we spend 
> implementing, documenting, debugging, and teaching 
> 'private(scope)' reduces the amount of effort we can spend on 
> other things."
>
> That is not a valid argument against private(scope).
>
> It an argument against anything.
>
> I demonstrated how invalid this part of his argument is, by 
> referring back to @mustuse (his proposal).
>
> I need arguments against the idea being proposed, not any idea.

Given that 'opportunity cost' is mentioned as the main cost, 
implies that Paul found nothing technically wrong this new 
feature; if the idea was unsound etc., I'm sure that it would 
have been mentioned before this.

Given that 'opportunity cost' was explicitly mentioned (which as 
you say, is a self-evident cost for any new feature), implies 
that he believes that the opportunity cost of this 
nothing-wrong-in-principle private(scope) feature is too high.

I really can't see how @mustuse is relevant to private(scope) 
benefit-to-cost ratio, beyond the "well, @mustuse got in, so 
there's no reason for private(scope) not to get in" type 
argument...but maybe that's just me not understanding the 
connection.

Jordan