No header files?

[Walter Bright]

AJ wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
> news:hbo7fa$316k$2 at digitalmars.com...
>> AJ wrote:
>>> You lose the ability to use, say a class declaration, as the 
>>> specification (at least without a sophisitcated, 
>>> code-folding/code-formatting IDE).
>> Just change "class" to "interface" and you're good to go.
> 
> Seems "apples and oranges" to me. "class declaration" can have data members 
> while "interface" can't.

It's usually considered good style to keep your data members hidden from 
users. Interfaces do that nicely.


> I mean, "my concept of it". I don't know what 
> definitions D has of those things. In C++, I use interfaces where 
> appropriate (say, where usage outside of a given library/subsystem is 
> anticipated/desired), but for most purposes (say, within a given 
> library/subsystem), I want a full class declaration (with data members etc). 
> When I think "interface", I think "pure abstract base class" and is 
> something strictly behavioral. When thinking "class" or "struct", I think 
> first of the data members, something more nominal ("noun-ish"). 

If you're exposing data members to all the users, then you might as well 
expose the function bodies, too, because the benefits of hiding the 
implementation are already mostly gone.