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

[Dukc]

On Sunday, 28 April 2024 at 00:16:37 UTC, NotYouAgain wrote:
> On Saturday, 27 April 2024 at 13:10:08 UTC, Dukc wrote:
>
> A programmer being able to declare a private member in a class 
> is a 'delicate' subject.
>
> It inflames war? Really?

It's not so much that the subject itself would be touchy, bar for 
one person who just couldn't stop complaining over the status 
quo, to the point of resorting to sockpuppetry.

It's that the arguments about it went so badly and fruitlessly, 
that I'm pretty sure people would hate to go over all that once 
again. Therefore, please don't start arguments on this.

> But the idea is fundamentally sound.
>
> I simply cannot agree to those that say it is not sound.
>
> The motivations for such fierce opposition to it, is the 
> problem.

Unfortunately, you're doing the exact mistake I'm warning you 
about. By the time you're questioning motivations of others it's 
a sure sign you're not getting anywhere with this.

This is the case *even if their motivations are actually 
problematic*. People aren't perfect. Maybe they deserve 
chastising about their attitudes, but it will still annoy them 
and destroy their respect for you and you proposal.

It's not worth it. Anyone thinking it is should not be here in 
the first place.