Code That Says Exactly What It Means

[Peter C]

On Wednesday, 29 October 2025 at 01:18:42 UTC, Lance Bachmeier 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 28 October 2025 at 23:15:36 UTC, Peter C wrote:
>> 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 ;-)
>
> The problem with your approach is that you're proposing a major 
> change to the language. You need to demonstrate the benefit. 
> I'm not proposing anything, just telling you that if you don't 
> want to dump your time in a hole, you're going to need to 
> provide a more compelling argument to the powers in charge 
> (which does not include me). I don't recall anyone ever arguing 
> for this feature and making a real attempt to justify it as a 
> language change.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about D so much as the principle 
that "Collaboration, should not erase ownership".

Nobody has ever demonstrated why it should - most likely, because 
it's not a valid principle.

It's sad that a discussion on this principle has to always get 
derailed. A few are already trying hard to do that.

I guess this is a discussion for a more professionaly minded 
audience - so I'll leave it for now.

btw. If I had been involved when someone suggested friends in 
C++, I would have actively argued the same principle. So it's now 
about D per se. Actually, I would have argued in C++, for 
friendprivate ;-)