Extending D's support for object-oriented design with private(this)

[NotYouAgain]

On Saturday, 27 April 2024 at 02:03:35 UTC, Richard (Rikki) 
Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>
> If you want this you have to be specific that it is included 
> (and yes this is an example of why a DIP is needed to know what 
> your assumptions are).

But I prefer to discuss this first, as there are things I cleary 
do not know. Hence the discussion.

The DIP process should incorporate what I've learned in the 
discusion, in order for the DIP to be worthy of the time and 
attention of those responsible for approving it.

At the moment, the discusion is not revealing anything I don't 
alread know.

That is, people 'seem' to accept that there are problems, by 
insisting that one just puts the class in a separate module, and 
a unittest for that class in yet another separate module. This 
discussion is about how to avoid putting the completely unnessary 
burden on programmers.

I know. How about providnig the solution in the language instead?

That's what's being discussed.