On 13/05/2018 5:11 PM, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
On Sunday, 13 May 2018 at 02:36:28 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
On Sunday, 13 May 2018 at 02:10:31 UTC, Uknown wrote:
And please, if this bothers you so much, start a new thread. You're
spamming someone else's feature request by going off topic.
yeah, I know how much *you* (and many others) would like to shutdown
any discussion about the absurd way in which classes are treated in D.
It's a touchy topic it seems.
Nobody's getting worked up about this, and nobody's telling you to stop
talking about it. There have been suggestions that you write up a DIP
for it. This is a standard process for suggesting improvements to D.
I have a draft DIP hanging around on my hard drive relating to named
function parameters, for instance. It discusses:
* The thing to be changed
* Why I think it should be changed
* Examples of how the status quo causes problems
* How I want code to work in the future
* Examples of what I want code to look like
* How other languages handle this thing
That's just due diligence for nontrivial enhancement requests. And named
function parameters is a feature with probably very little opposition
and moderate support.
so take your own advice. create a new thread, and have a go at me
there instead.
It should be as easy as changing the "Subject" field on the reply
screen. It would have been gracious of you to do this, all things
considered.
When someone creates a topic about extending the capacity of classes
in D, I will always feel the urge to remind them, that classes in D
are a complete joke - and that you shouldn't bother using them. Better
to use another language that has the capacity to respect the
encapsulation barrier of the class.
Your complaint is about protection, not about classes. It should affect
all definitions. Perhaps you simply don't expect type-level
encapsulation for structs and top-level declarations.
On that note we should chat[0].
Preferably IRC or Discord.
[0] https://github.com/rikkimax/DIPs/blob/named_args/DIPs/DIP1xxx-RC.md
