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

[unprotected-entity]

On Tuesday, 30 October 2018 at 01:33:50 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
>
> That your request to make D's `private` work like Java, C#, and 
> C++ isn't consistent because they work differently from each 
> other.
>

I've already demonstrated that they all work the same:

see: 
https://forum.dlang.org/post/dyfnrbjggqzianfwgvll@forum.dlang.org

And I don't want private in D to mean anything other than what it 
currently means - as that would be a breaking change, that could 
never be acceptable.

On the otherhand, I have see ideas/propsals presented that do not 
really involve complexity, do not change what private means, but 
still provides an option to the programmer to better encapsulate 
their class, inside a module, from other code also in that 
module. I don't think that is so bad an idea, as to be completely 
dismissed.

> Do you want to make things work like C++? Then you'll need to 
> add a notion of friends.

No you don't. Stuff inside a module are already friends - they 
can do whatever they want to each other. Hopefully, the line the 
crashes your plane, is not on line 10,001 (cause you might not 
see that it's bypassing the interface of your class declared 9000 
lines above it.

I don't want more friendship, I want less (inside a module that 
is).

And, I am specifically referring to classes, not structs. 
(although presumably it would be easy enought to accomodate a 
change to both.

A such would have no effect outside of the module. So it's all 
back in the control of the programmer, rather than the language.

btw. here is an interesting paper on 'friends' - well worth 
reading.

> When you say "people will expect this to work like these three 
> other languages" and those other languages do that thing 
> differently from each other, it's hard to take your claims 
> seriously.

really? when I looked at D, I expected the notion of private, 
declared within a class, to be private to that class (no matter 
what else is in the module).

That is what I expected. This is what C++/c#/Java does. It's a 
reasonable expectation for someone looking at using D. Is it not?

(unless you intentionally try to override that - with, for 
example, a friend).

In D, that overriding happens for you, automatically, within a 
module, and you get no say in it... whatsoever.

And I know for a fact, that I am not the  only one who expected 
that private declared within a class, to mean what it means in 
C++/Java/C#

So I cannot take your claim (that such expectations do not exist) 
seriously.


> I exercise patience at the start, and it wears thin when people 
> repeatedly ignore me.

You starting to sound like that guy that runs the linux kernel 
project.. I believe he's just take time off to deal with that 
attitude...