On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 00:44:15 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
When one encounters a new idea that's unfamiliar sometimes it's
easy to think that because it's unfamiliar it must be unsound.
That can be a mistake. It might be better to suspend judgement
for a while and keep an open mind.
I believe that responses like this, are really just designed to
further obfuscate the point I'm trying to make, so that it cannot
progress any further.
Now, speaking of keeping an open mind....let's get back to my
point.. can we?
(q1) Why is it, that people who use D, object *so much* to the
idea of allowing (at the choice of the programmer) for a type to
have it's own private state *within* a module (so that its
private state is respected by other code also within that module)?
Or you ask it another way:
(q2)Why must a type within a module *always* have its private
state exposed to other code within the module? (the key word
here, being 'always').
Both questions seem very reasonable to ask, in my opinion, not
matter what background you have.
(q3) Should a language intentionally set out to prevent a
programmer from making that choice?
please stop obfuscating, and try to answer the questions.
