On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 10:10:48 UTC, Sergey wrote:
..
I saw some posts at forum about private-class-scope, but
community of core-D is fine with module-unit approach I think.
That's fair enough. I fully support 'majority rules' (if that's
what's happening here).
But it could limit the uptake of the langauge, particulary for
those software engineers who believe that when you are defining a
class, you are defining a type - as Scott Myers has put it.
To such people, other code in the module shouldn't affect my
type, in the same way it shouldn't affect a built-in type. At
least, not unless I've authorised it, as part of the
specification of my type, which presumably I have, by default,
just by including any other code in a module, where a class type
has been defined.
In such a module, one should annotate the class with
@hereBeDragons
