DIP10005: Dependency-Carrying Declarations is now available for community feedback

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 31.12.2016 13:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 12/30/16 11:10 PM, Chris Wright wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 21:13:19 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> DIP1005 can't be in
>>> the business of arguing that encapsulation is good by means of examples.
>>
>> Right. I said we should talk about the concrete benefits of the proposal
>> instead of talking about encapsulation.
>
> Why would the DIP hamstring itself by not discussing its most important
> advantage? -- Andrei

Because it is a slippery slope if you subscribe to the notion that "D's 
unit of encapsulation is the module".

Do we need to rethink encapsulation in D? Should there be an additional 
'internal' visibility modifier that hides members even to other 
declarations in the same module?


On an unrelated note: I'm still not a fan of the with(import) syntax as 
it morally promotes a lack of turtles (even if not technically so).