On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 13:18:30 UTC, Dennis wrote:
That sounds like "I just want there to be the option for
aggregate value types... without using struct.". The question
this raises is why the current solution is so problematic.
I just want (for example) to be able to write a module, that
contains a class, and also has non-member, non-friend functions.
You simply cannot do that in a D module, as the class has no
clothes - to extend the metaphor from my recent post.
I refer you to Scott Meyers article about the benefits of having
'non-friend' non-member functions:
How Non-Member Functions Improve Encapsulation (btw. people
misread that title - it should be been "How Non-Friend,
Non-Member..."
http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/how-non-member-functions-improve-encapsu/184401197?pgno=1
Do you agree that language additions add a lot of weight? If
yes, then it's simply the fact that people don't think your
suggestion bears that weight because it's already possible to
do what you want in another way.
No it is not. You can keep saying there is, but it doesn't make
it so.
We don't seem to be on the same page here...do you misunderstand
what I want?
Fact: I cannot have a class in a module, and specify (so that the
compiler can enforce it) that I want other code in the module to
respect the specification of that class. It just cannot happen.
Don't say it can. It can't. It's fact.
As a result, one of my core guidelines are not applicable
anymore, if I used D:
" Don’t force together into a module things that will be used or
maintained separately, and don’t separate things that will always
be used and maintained together."
Regarding the 'burden' to the D langauge, by providing the
programmer with a tool to specify better encapsulation of code
*within* the module:
"I have become more and more convinced that the key to code
reusability and scalability is encapsulation — having subsystems
communicate through small, well-defined interfaces and letting
them hide their own implementation details."
- Walter Bright
http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/uniform-function-call-syntax/232700394?queryText=Scott%2BMeyers
i.e. better encapsulation really is a good thing (although for
many, it a lesson that needs to be learned).
