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

[NotYouAgain]

On Tuesday, 30 April 2024 at 02:00:19 UTC, Lance Bachmeier wrote:
> On Tuesday, 30 April 2024 at 00:01:00 UTC, NotYouAgain wrote:
>
>> Yes, I know the opposition to this idea. I do not need to here 
>> from them again. I'd rather here from those who support 
>> change, not those who are totally against it (as their views 
>> are already known).
>
> That would be pointless. There's discussion so that the 
> downsides can be raised and addressed.
>
> I don't see any reason to keep this going further. Write a DIP 
> and see what happens.
>
> If you restate your opinions about how OOP should be done and 
> how people here don't understand OOP, it'll be a waste of your 
> time. Everybody knows those arguments. Whether you want to 
> accept it or not, many people have found that things work well 
> as they are, so you're not likely to convince anyone in power 
> by going down that road. If you make the case that this does 
> not lead to a demand for friends, which I see as a strong 
> argument, then maybe it'll have a chance. I think it's a 
> reasonable addition to the language, but I'm not the one that 
> makes those decisions (and that's a good thing, because I can't 
> claim to know much about designing a big language like D).

You sure do seem to focus a lot of me.

The whole point of putting this idea forward in the DIP Ideas, 
was not to re-hear all the usual objections and anti-oop 
rethoric, and other crap that always attaches itself to this 
topic.

The only motivation here, is to be able to explicately declare a 
private member in a class, within a module. This is not some 
random, silly idea I've come up with.

The discussion should be focussed on how to produce the best DIP, 
not on how not to even bother with a DIP.

Do you see my point? There are implementation related things that 
do need to be discussed *before* a DIP can proceed. For example, 
issues relating to nested class - i.e. should private(this) be 
type based or scoped based. There maybe questions about 
reflection as well..

The point of my raising it in this specific are of discussions, 
was not have people pile once again on the idea, but to let it 
proceed unhindered by all the *usual* opposition who insist that 
this never be allowed in D.

Do you see my point? I wan't do discuss the implications of it 
proceeding, not argue about how useless it is.

I can raise legitimatge concerns in a DIP, but I won't be 
spending time talking about that anti-oop rage that always 
attaches itself to this idea.

But once, again, they have succeeded it destabelising in rational 
discussion of this idea.

And you're just piling on with them, it seems.