On Friday, 11 May 2018 at 14:05:25 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
[snip]
Actually, it is completely on topic. (although I understand
that many on this forum are very eager to shut down any
discussion about fixing class encapsulation in D, for some
reason).
i.e, to be more specific.. so you can understand...my reply to
'do I want sealed classes in D', is simply no. What I want
first, is a class that can properly encapsulate itself.
Until that occurs, any talk about expanding the class concept
with yet more attributes (that probably won't mean what you
think they mean), like sealed, is just irrelevant and pushes
the problem of broken encapsulation even further down peoples
code paths.
private is not private at all in D, and because of this,
classes are fundamentally broken in D (by design apparently).
Now.. I really do have better ways to spend my time. I've made
my point. Nobody who uses D seems to think in a similar way,
apparently, so I leave it at that.
I think the last point in the conversation was "write a DIP".
Nothing is going to change unless someone does that.
Personally, I don't agree with the idiomatic D doesn't use
classes much argument. If that's the case, then they should be
removed from the language. The language supports OOP/inheritance
and if this is something that makes that experience better, then
let it stand on its merits. But a new keyword will not get added
without a DIP.
