On Monday, 21 January 2013 at 13:37:21 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Monday, 21 January 2013 at 12:49:47 UTC, eles wrote:
On Friday, 18 January 2013 at 22:29:45 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 1/18/2013 2:16 PM, Andrey wrote:
What would be the point ? You'll have the implementation and
the function definition under the nose anyway as it is in the
same file.
If something should be private from your code, what is your
code doing is the same module ?
1. Quoting Andrey's original post (3rd on this thread):
"So, when you observe this situation, it becomes really hard to
pursue fully fledged commercial development with D."
So, if you think that D is so string that it allows itself such
ingenuities that makes C++ programmers giving it a try to scream
away from D, then fine. D already has difficulties in being
accepted by corporations (and I thing that lack of gcc
integration is the strongest difficulty). But, now, imagine that
you present D in front of a bunch of hardened C++ programmers and
you have to explain those already skeptikal people that thes
should not scream when they see Andrey's originally posted code.
It is not also about D's own way, D still has to make some
compromises to be accepted. In 10 years, it will be, maybe, the
reference. IT IS NOT TODAY.
2. That file/module could be really huge. Several succesive
programmers working on the same file/module could be of various
expertise levels and not aware of such subtleties. Refactoring
means also moving a lot of code around and you will find yourself
needed to go back to that file where the code was originally
defined and modify the "private" into "package" if you still want
your code to compile. As a rule, during refactoring, it is a bad
thing to touch (or be needed to touch) other code than the one
you are messing up with, be in the same source file or no.
