Adding a new design constraint to D

[forkit]

On Wednesday, 15 June 2022 at 03:01:19 UTC, Jordan Wilson wrote:
> 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

Yes. I want to know what is technically wrong with private(scope).

then I can attempt to address that concern.

If we establish that nothing is technically wrong (in terms of 
the cost of implementing it in particular), and, we establish 
that it's a useful idea, then we can move to the issue of 
prioritising the addition of this feature over that feature. It's 
not that this point is not relevant, its just not relevant at 
this stage.

This starting to sound like a nice diversion tactic to me ;-)