Re: We need an internal keyword.

[12345swordy via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 08:40:36 UTC, Laurent Tréguier 
wrote:
On Sunday, 21 October 2018 at 03:17:23 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
So that classes can share some of their variables but not 
others in a module.

IE.

class A
{
internal int A; //This is shared in the module
private int B; // But not this.
}

No need to reintroduce the "Friend" feature from cpp.

This is by design; the D way of dealing with this would be to 
split the module into a package with multiple modules. The A 
class would be in its own module, and use `package` where you 
used `internal` so that other modules in the same package can 
have access to it.
Using a package.d package module 
(https://dlang.org/spec/module.html#package-module), you can 
still use the multiple modules just as if they were a single 
module.

Instead of a source tree like this:

source
|
+-some
  |
  +-thing.d

You'd end up with a source tree like this:

source
|
+-some
  |
  +-thing
    |
    +-package.d
    |
    +-a.d
    |
    +-rest_of_the_stuff.d

Where package.d publicly imports a.d and rest_of_the_stuff.d, 
so `import some.thing` would still work.
I know what the current design is!! You have zero tools in 
regarding to allowing class to share certain variables but not 
others in the same module! Create a module for every class is 
taking all or nothing approach, when there is a reasonable middle 
ground.
Your package solution just make things more unnecessarily 
complicated then warranted