Using closure in function scope to make "real" private class members

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad]

On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 06:45:24 UTC, forkit wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 06:14:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
> wrote:
>>
>> There would be no downside if D was willing to take a breaking 
>> change, but that is unlikely.
>
> Huh?
>
> private(this) ..(for example) is not a 'breaking' change. It's 
> completly opt-in.

D should stop adding more ugly complexity.

@it @is @dying @from @1000 @well-meaning @cuts

> That's cause, perhaps, to those whom it matters, they end up 
> deciding not to use D.

If this one thing is the reason they leave then they would have 
left anyway!!

> The proof is already there - i.e. C++/Java/C# programmers, 
> already use and rely upon this feature. Imagine if those 
> lanaguages took it away.

Imagine if you took features away from Haskell, clearly D must 
have everything Haskell has!  Not to mention Rust or Php!!

Proof failed, but your line of reasoning does explain why D @is 
@bleeding @from @1000 @well-meaning @cuts...