On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 20:05:06 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 2/8/23 04:07, zjh wrote:
> Last time, someone proposed to add `private` like `C++'s`,
We've discussed the 'private' topic very many times already.
C++'s private necessitate the 'friend' keyword, which comes
with it's own problems.
Besides, D has zero problems with its private implementation in
the sense that there has been zero bugs related to it being
that way. Given the number of individuals who bring this topic
up over and over up is so few that I don't think there is a
common problem.
Do you have actual bugs related to this? "Wanting" the
inclusion of a feature is sufficient.
In contrast, I use D every day and love its relaxed attitude
towards private.
> and then it
> was the same,they are always unwilling to add facilities
useful
That is not correct. The truth is, nobody is jumping to
implementations just because some people think they are useful.
There are always valid reasons for including a feature or not.
Ali
You mentioned previously that D implements various things in
unprincipled ways.
I guess, if one wants to use D, one has to be comfortable with
this.
But using a relaxed attitude towards the implementation of such a
common and important abstraction, that in turn allows me to so
easily shoot myself in the foot, is not really an attractive
feature .. to me ;-)
btw. When a newbie to D raises ideas, suggestions, etc... and you
counter them with (in essence) 'we don't need that in D, but go
write a dip if you think we do' attitude, is a real turn off.
