Why do private member variables behaved like protected in the same module when creating deriving class?

[12345swordy]

On Saturday, 27 October 2018 at 04:44:58 UTC, unprotected-entity 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 October 2018 at 02:49:00 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>>
>> D IS an object-oriented language as much as c++, just not a 
>> pure one.
>
> Most do not really understand the use of that term 
> 'object-oriented'.
I don't know about you, but you are in a minority when it comes 
to that particular definition.

>> "Have a short learning curve for programmers comfortable with 
>> programming in C, C++ or Java."
>> Gee, I wonder why?
>
> I do not see large numbers of C++/Java/C# programmers, 
> switching over to D anytime soon - particulary if they have a 
> fondness towards object-oriented programming using classes.
It doesn't matter what you think. That is currently how D 
advertise itself right now.
I came from a c++ background with the promise that it is "better".
If you think this futile advertising then by all means create a 
new thread justifying your reasoning.
>> You didn't read the dip that I wrote did you? Nowhere in the 
>> dip did I change the concept of the modular unit. I just 
>> remove the one module per file Limination. That is it.
>
> I actually found the dip draft confusing. After reading the 
> justification at the start, for what was going to be proposed, 
> and then reading what was actually proposed .. well.. to me, 
> they don't seem to be entirely in sync with each other.

This isn't helpful criticism at all. Can you be more specific?

> In any case, given the justification, I would replace the 
> proposed solution to say .."Go use another language that 
> (already) does what you want it to do".

LOL, sorry, but I didn't came here just for classes themselves. 
Programming in other language makes me miss D meta programming 
features.