On Thursday, 17 May 2018 at 02:32:07 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
I propose an idea, for discussion (robust discussion even
Add an new attribute to class, named 'sealed'.
If class level protection is added, please do not call it sealed.
People from c++ might be suprised by 'private' already. We do not
have to confuse those c#ies too.
Module level protection is enough to hide implementation details
though. So while i do understand why you want this in D, i don't
think it is worth it to complicate the language for something you
can work around easily by putting the classes in their own
I'm also not convinced think that your 'sealed' would be used
much, because accessing private state in the module is actually
extremly useful (e.g. unittests).
That beeing said, if you are convinced it would be a good
addition, please write a DIP.
Even if it will not be accepted it will at least force a
decision. And we can point to the reasons it got
accepted/rejected in the future.