Adding a new design constraint to D

[Olivier Pisano]

On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 00:02:41 UTC, forkit wrote:
>
> So I found this discussion from 2003! That's (at least) how 
> long this has been going on.
>
> It will continue to go on of course, because there is no right 
> or wrong way here.
>

Yes, every once in a while we get such discussions when someone 
finds out that D doesn't work exactly like [insert one's favorite 
language here] and pretends that is THE cause of the lack of 
popularity of D.

Or that we absolutely need a new syntax for an existing feature 
to match the new language du jour, like when Go introduced the := 
operator. We were told that we HAD to add it too, back then, to 
avoid typing 'auto'.

If you really want to add a new visibility level to D, you'll 
have to write a DIP and convince the community that the existing 
four are not enough. Pretending that you'll be leaving for 
[whatever language better fits your needs] may only indicate that 
you don't care.