On Monday, 21 May 2018 at 14:46:40 UTC, Sjoerd Nijboer wrote:
Nope, I'm simply a bystander who sees lack of class scope as a
"feature" of D that is usefull in some cases while not hurting
idiomatic OOP as long as you only define a single class (+
unittests) inside a module.
If you want that too but still want static functions outside
classes, you can mix in C# extension methods paradigm into D.
Which is why I don't see any reason to add this.
And there's the point I'm trying to make.
Why should a c# programmer come to D, if, in order to keep
private private, they have to resort to this. It makes no sense.
They may as well just stick to C#.
Same for Java programmers, same for C++ programmers
(class-oriented ones).
As it is, D tells them, stuff you, private is now
private-but-module-public, and you have no say it.
My suggestions are about resolving this, in order to attract more
programmers to D, because I doubt I'm the only person in the
world, that believes an object has a right to privacy.
But as I've said, I do really get the feeling the D community
does not want more programmers, unless they are like them.
