Re: Sealed classes - would you want them in D? (v2)

[KingJoffrey via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 18 May 2018 at 12:32:30 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:

private(this) int y;


I think that might be it. So clean.


This keeps the implementation simple and the scope focused. If 
a DIP were put forward, I think this would be the approach to 
take. Though a fairly strong case will still need to be made as 
to why this is beneficial (use cases, example code, etc). To 
bolster the case, I would look at the reasoning behind the 
recommendation in Java that classes use the public API 
internally rather than manipulating member variables directly 
to improve maintainability.

How hard is it to convince people, that being able to have the 
compiler detect semantic errors that break your defined interface 
is actually a good thing. I mean really. I've had this capability 
in major languages for decades.

Let D empower the programmer in this case, by giving that back to 
them (as an opt-in)