On Friday, 18 May 2018 at 17:28:59 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
You can "simulate" this by putting the classes into their own
submodules of the same package.
That just another hack to get around the problem.
It's not a solution to removing the problem, from being a problem.
(yeah, I know, not everyone thinks it's a problem.. been there
done that).
private(this) is a lot easier, than being told you need to
redesign your whole class layout to accomodate D's 'private is
really public' concept.
Lets get rid of the problem (that prevents many from using D in
the first place), rather that constatnly come up with new ways of
telling them find a way around it.
btw. I only know of two reasons why private is public so far
(from discussions).
1 - Voldemort types (don't know what it is, and don't care).
2 - unittests (but, if the unit tests, testing your class, are
outside your class accessing it's private parts, then I have
trouble considering them to be unittests at all.
