On Sunday, 13 May 2018 at 02:36:28 UTC, KingJoffrey wrote:
On Sunday, 13 May 2018 at 02:10:31 UTC, Uknown wrote:
And please, if this bothers you so much, start a new thread.
You're spamming someone else's feature request by going off
topic.
yeah, I know how much *you* (and many others) would like to
shutdown any discussion about the absurd way in which classes
are treated in D. It's a touchy topic it seems.
Nobody's getting worked up about this, and nobody's telling you
to stop talking about it. There have been suggestions that you
write up a DIP for it. This is a standard process for suggesting
improvements to D.
I have a draft DIP hanging around on my hard drive relating to
named function parameters, for instance. It discusses:
* The thing to be changed
* Why I think it should be changed
* Examples of how the status quo causes problems
* How I want code to work in the future
* Examples of what I want code to look like
* How other languages handle this thing
That's just due diligence for nontrivial enhancement requests.
And named function parameters is a feature with probably very
little opposition and moderate support.
so take your own advice. create a new thread, and have a go at
me there instead.
It should be as easy as changing the "Subject" field on the reply
screen. It would have been gracious of you to do this, all things
considered.
When someone creates a topic about extending the capacity of
classes in D, I will always feel the urge to remind them, that
classes in D are a complete joke - and that you shouldn't
bother using them. Better to use another language that has the
capacity to respect the encapsulation barrier of the class.
Your complaint is about protection, not about classes. It should
affect all definitions. Perhaps you simply don't expect
type-level encapsulation for structs and top-level declarations.
