`restricted` member variables

[forkit]

On Thursday, 23 June 2022 at 11:54:26 UTC, Dennis wrote:
>
> Note that I don't actually want the feature myself, but I was 
> curious how complex it would actually be to implement, and 
> wanted to show that the discussion does not have to be a harsh 
> conflict between two self-interested camps. Maybe when there's 
> something concrete on the table we can all stop bickering over 
> principles, definitions, quotes from authority figures etc. and 
> get some real world experience. And when it gets rejected, at 
> least you can still forkit ;)

They keep pulling me back in!!

But yes. So it seems we both wanted **exactly** the same thing.

Not some drawn out process where everyone will complain about 
this and that... but something one can start writing code with, 
and see what happens from there.

Thanks for you reffort, whether you like the idea or not ;-)

> I did NOT want to show that making noise on the forum is the 
> way to get your feature in. Please don't keep bringing up the 
> same points over and over, especially in other threads like 
> [this 
> one](https://forum.dlang.org/post/jjxxvzaehgzzwucapmap@forum.dlang.org).

This actually was never about making noise to 'get the feature 
in', but making noise to discover what people think about the 
idea, which is very interesting in itself.

The feature, even if it got into D, would not change my 
perspective on D, just based on that one feature. I still think 
other languages much better understand the concept of a 
user-defined type, than D, whose user-defined type outsources its 
own destiny, to the module! That is a complete joke to me. And 
always will be.

Mmm...I'm not sure why you're picking on my post there, since it 
was clearly in response to another idea.. but hey...

In any case, I reserve the right to bring up the point, or any 
point, whenever, and whereever I think it is appropriate.