Sealed classes - would you want them in D? (v2)

[KingJoffrey]

On Friday, 18 May 2018 at 12:32:30 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>
> private(this) int y;
>

I think that might be it. So clean.


> This keeps the implementation simple and the scope focused. If 
> a DIP were put forward, I think this would be the approach to 
> take. Though a fairly strong case will still need to be made as 
> to why this is beneficial (use cases, example code, etc). To 
> bolster the case, I would look at the reasoning behind the 
> recommendation in Java that classes use the public API 
> internally rather than manipulating member variables directly 
> to improve maintainability.

How hard is it to convince people, that being able to have the 
compiler detect semantic errors that break your defined interface 
is actually a good thing. I mean really. I've had this capability 
in major languages for decades.

Let D empower the programmer in this case, by giving that back to 
them (as an opt-in)