On Thursday, 8 November 2018 at 23:50:18 UTC, TheFireFighter
wrote:
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?
Fair enough, the exact thing you want is not possible. I
understand that. It's also a fact that you can't have a
value-type class. But just because you can't have a value type
*class* doesn't mean you can't have a value-type aggregate: there
is struct. The higher goal of encapsulating classes is possible
by writing one per module and using package.d, it's just not
possible with the restriction that multiple classes must be in
the same file.
Regarding the 'burden' to the D langauge, by providing the
programmer with a tool to specify better encapsulation of code
*within* the module:
[quote]
i.e. better encapsulation really is a good thing (although for
many, it a lesson that needs to be learned).
Walter considers the module the lowest level of encapsulation,
while you consider the class to be that. Neither is proven to be
better so far. To change the D language in that regard, you have
to convince people that class-private is superior/important
enough to warrant the language change. Unfortunately, the
arguments given so far have not done that yet, since they mostly
appeal to feeling, fear and 'the obvious' as mentioned earlier.
