On Sunday, 13 May 2018 at 05:51:07 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
On Sunday, 13 May 2018 at 05:11:16 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
[...]
First, this thread was about extending the capabilities of
classes in D with some new attribute/capability - sealed.
I thought it was first important to point out, in this thread,
as opposed to a separate thread, that classes in D are already
problematic, because modules do not respect the encapsulation
boundaries of classes, and any discussion about further
extending classes should be approached with great caution -
because the problem will only become even more entrenched.
Second, writing a DIP is pointless, since Walter likes the idea
that the module doesn't protect the encapsulation boundary of
the class. Now if Walter thinks that's fine, what is a DIP
going to do? I mean really. I have better things to do.
Third, those who responded to my caution are the ones that
should have created a separate thread, not me.
Finally (and I do mean finally), my concern about the loss of
the encapsulation boundary of classes in D, has a very real
impact on the quality and maintainability of software systems
developed in D. That the designer of D apparently thinks
otherwise, baffles me.
walter bright was not the only one who liked that idea of "only
module level encapsulation". Its unfair to imply it like that.
Also, someone may say: I can see what happens in one and the same
file. If there are two classes/structs in one file, they are
"friends" and I dont need the "friend"-keyword anymore.
Thats an argument, too.
