Developing a plan for D2.0: Getting everything on the table

[Bill Baxter]

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Stewart Gordon<smjg_1998 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Sergey Gromov wrote:
>>
>> Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:59:40 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>>> Is it appropriate to define multiple classes, structs, templates, etc
>>>> within a single module? What considerations should inform the decision
>>>> regarding the placement of module boundaries?
>>>
>>> I think it's appropriate because many pieces of functionality come as a
>>> bundle. The rule of thumb is, module provides the functionality, and it's up
>>> to the designer to decide what that entails.
>>
>> That's the problem.  On one hand, it's desirable to see a module as a
>> functionality bundle.  On the other hand, module is the smallest
>> available unit of encapsulation.  That is, if you have a class and
>> change its private implementation, this may affect *anything* in the
>> same module.  Hence Tango's hundreds of modules in dozens of packages, I
>> think.
>
> I guess that's meant to encourage you to keep your modules small enough that
> you know what you're doing.
>
> At the smallest level, it would be a matter of: If in C++ you would declare
> Qwert to be a friend of Yuiop, then in D you put Qwert and Yuiop in the same
> module.  You could implement the converse as well, but for a bunch of small
> classes it usually isn't worth it.
>
>> It also adds to the problem that most people familiar with OO paradigm
>> consider classes to be such encapsulation units.  Surprizes are
>> inevitable.
>
> I once came up with the idea a 'veryprivate' protection attribute that would
> do this, but I can't seem to find the post now.

"super private"  :-)

Sorry I just can't let that old idea to call immutable "super const"
die.  It was just too darn cute.

--bb