Adding a new design constraint to D

[bauss]

On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 09:01:09 UTC, surlymoor wrote:
> On Monday, 20 June 2022 at 08:25:34 UTC, forkit wrote:
>> On Sunday, 19 June 2022 at 22:45:44 UTC, forkit wrote:
>>>[...]
>>
>> I'm happy (more than happy actually) to conclude my input into 
>> this discusssion with this:
>>
>> [...]
>
> Then draft a DIP to get the ball rolling.
> But you won't.

Why waste hours writing a DIP when there's a better chance of 
winning the lottery than to have this accepted as a DIP.

I think it's okay to express your dislikes and what you wished D 
could do better, without necessarily putting in the work yourself 
for the change; especially when it is something as divided as 
this.

I don't think it would pass, the same way that the default we 
have now wouldn't pass a DIP either.

It's just a too dividend topic and I don't think either side of 
the coin is inherently wrong, it just depends on your usage of D 
and what your background is, I think people coming from Java, C# 
etc. tends to favor this change, where the opposite is true for 
people coming from C, C++ etc.

I do however also think that enough is enough, clearly the 
dislike has been expressed enough and at some point you just 
gotta stop complaining.

But I also believe that "writing a DIP" isn't always an 
acceptable response, even if that's what's needed to make the 
change.

Before one writes a DIP you need

a) make sure there is sufficient support for the implementation
b) make sure the topic has a chance of passing

"class private" only passes a) but not b)