On Thursday, 26 October 2017 at 23:29:24 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
The point is that functions that do not need access to private fields should NOT be part of the class. Most of the discussion here is based on the idea that those functions should still be semantically part of the class, even if not physically. That idea should be revisited. Why should they be semantically part of the class?
Because it's functionality of the class. If it's not available, it will be reimplemented and duplicated. C++ doesn't have such problem, because in a way all imports are public there so you have no chance to separate a function from type.
