Code That Says Exactly What It Means

[Peter C]

On Tuesday, 28 October 2025 at 22:36:58 UTC, Lance Bachmeier 
wrote:
>
> ..
> Over the years this has come up many times. Can you provide an 
> example showing the value of doing that? I understand that 
> maybe that's your preference for whatever valid reason, but 
> I've never seen anyone give an example where it's actually a 
> constraint.
>
> If you want to push on this, that's where you should start. 
> Because every previous such proposal I've seen has died, as the 
> people requesting it keep arguing from authority that it's the 
> correct way to do things, rather than demonstrating the benefit 
> of a major change to the language.

Example after example will get nowhere, fast.

It's a matter or principle, not examples.

The principal behind one perspective is: Modules are 
collaboration units, types are sovereign owners.

The principle behind the other perspective says: Modules disolve 
ownership, and they are all or nothing.

I am a firm believer, that each type should be able to guard its 
invariants, even in a collaborative module.

It just so happens that I primarily use class types, so the 
principle itself often gets overlooked in the discussion, and 
(some) people focus their attention on their dislike of OOP 
instead ;-)

I firmly believe that types should retain their sovereignty, even 
in within a module, and scopeprivate would accomplish this.

Collaboration, should not erase ownership.

Can you give me an example where it should ;-)