Extending D's support for object-oriented design with private(this)
Arafel
er.krali at gmail.com
Sat Apr 27 10:58:17 UTC 2024
On 27/4/24 12:22, Kagamin wrote:
> In OOP world you enforce contracts with interfaces, not with access
> attributes. Do you really come from java?
I don't understand you. Are you arguing that we don't need `private`, or
even visibility, at all, because we should just use interfaces?
Because otherwise, once you accept the need for `private`, then the
question is what the limits should be.
D chose "module", which I can understand, but don't share, at least not
as the only option. I think the class / scope is a much more natural
boundary, as it is for visibility.
More information about the dip.ideas
mailing list