On Tuesday, 22 April 2014 at 06:39:47 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 21/04/14 10:49, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
Ok, so "any number" was poorly phrased. What I meant was "a
large
number", because in my experience, modules tend to be quite
large.
Specifically, they are rarely limited to containing just a
single
class. They often contain multiple classes, along with most
related
functionality. In principle, changing the implementation of
one class
can break the implementation of another class! Now, you may
argue that
kitchen sink modules are poor programming style, but it seems
to be a
common style, with Phobos being a very prominent example. :)
Phobos is a very bad example of code organizing. I'm almost
exclusively organizing with one class per module and a deeper
hierarchy of packages. Not saying that is the ideal solution.
I like it much more than class-based privacy for the simple
reason that I hate classes :) What is really missing here is
proper `package` protection that is actually usable (can select
package name it applies to). When it is implemented, you can
emulate same encapsulation layout by simply replacing classes
with modules and modules with packages.
