On 3/12/18 10:06 PM, psychoticRabbit wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 01:39:13 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
private is private to the module, not the class. There is no way in D
to restrict the rest of the module from accessing the members of a
class. This simplification makes it so that stuff like C++'s friend
are unnecessary. If your class in a separate module from main, then
main won't be able to access its private members.
- Jonathan M Davis
Mmm.. I don't think I like it.
I feel you should be able to make a member of a class, private,
regardless of where the class is located. This seems to break the
concept of class encapsulation.
No. I don't like it at all.
OK, so I agree there are drawbacks. But these can be worked around.
In fact, the language author touted this article as sage advice, when in
D it's pretty inconvenient:
But when you get right down to it, where you draw the line is arbitrary.
Given the power to encapsulate on module boundary, you have lots of
different options as to where your functions can reach. You can pretty
much put anything into a module, so you aren't limited to class members
which can access specific data. With the advent of package modules, you
can control quite finely what functions have access to what items, and
still have nice simple imports.
If you limit to class members, then you have to do something like C++
friends, which are unnecessarily verbose.
IMO, the module-level encapsulation is the right choice. It helps with a
lot of key features:
1. IFTI factory methods
3. co-related structs/classes