On Monday, 14 May 2018 at 19:40:18 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
A slippery slope fallacy isn't helping your case. Write a DIP
if it bothers you so much, as it changes the languages
fundamentally.
Alexander
If 'getting a module to respect the enscapsulation boundaries the
programmer puts in place would change the language so
'fundamentally', then the language 'already' presents big
problems for large complex application development.
Little old me ranting about it in some DIP isn't going to do much.
D is great for small, quick stuff though - I'll give it that. I
enjoy using D for small stuff.
But C++/Java/C# users all expect private to mean private, as it
should, and will, like me, get a nasty shock when they come over
to D, and discover it my mistake, as I did.
It was only through debugging my code, did I realise I had
disprespected the boundaries I set up, because the module let me
do it, and the compiler thought that's what I must have wanted. I
simply could not have made that mistake in any of the other
langauges I use.
Clearly others take a different perspective on this issue, that's
fine, I just don't get the case they're trying to make. It hasn't
made any sense to me thus far.
Removing respect for encapsulation boundaries, in order to
avoiding the need for using C++ like 'friend', sounds a bit dodgy
to me. No matter how much I think about it, I'd rather have those
boundaries and be forced to use friends.
