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

[KingJoffrey]

On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 13:39:12 UTC, Sjoerd Nijboer wrote:
>
> While you might say that a unittest shouldn't acces private 
> members and only public members, there are plenty of testcases 
> where one would want to write a unittest to set a given 
> variable via public function and then test if the appropriate 
> private fields are properly set. While this sounds like a 
> trivial usecase I believe it to be a verry big one in practice 
> since it removes a lot of boilerplate code from your 
> unit-tests, together with exposing the innards of a class's 
> implementation to the outside world just so you can unit-test 
> it.

I have to ask, why isn't that unittest your talking about, within 
the scope of the class? Why is it outside the class, testing 
private innards of the class?

I have trouble getting my head around this.

> The last point is something I don't like about OOP + TDD in 
> languages like C# or java and I think D has (accidentally) 
> solved this in a beautiful way, and I would dislike to see this 
> feature go.

I'm not sure I understand this. You mean you don't like 'private'?

You think an object doesn't have a right, to privacy?

Are you one of those facebook employees?

And who suggested getting rid of anything?