On Monday, 5 November 2018 at 16:50:34 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
There is a troll here posting as multiple different aliases,
who has tried this before, and continually comes back to harp
on the same issue. It's why I haven't participated, he doesn't
need to have more encouragement.
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 21:28:22 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
The only difference is that `func` became a member function.
And now what? You can just as easily "forget" what's in your
struct/class as in your whole module.
ok. Now, what are your options then (assuming you want an
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 21:35:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/2/2018 5:44 PM, 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
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 21:35:04 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/2/2018 5:44 PM, 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
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 06:57:50 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
We object because the people complaining can't point at a use
case that seems reasonable. If you provided real-world
examples, we'd consider them.
--
module test;
struct S
{
private uint a;
void setA(uint n)
On Saturday, 3 November 2018 at 06:57:50 UTC, Neia Neutuladh
wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2018 04:50:52 +, unprotected-entity wrote:
(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*
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.
On Friday, 2 November 2018 at 05:29:39 UTC, Neia Neutuladh wrote:
It's also not obviously so useful as to merit inclusion.
No. I don't say it merits inclusion.
I do say it merits discussion, as to its merits.
But from what I see, so far, is D, Go, Rust...they are seem to
have a love affair
On Thursday, 1 November 2018 at 23:58:15 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Having said that, though, there are some here who *do* want
something like what you describe... IIRC Manu has voiced this
before, and there may be others. (I myself don't consider it a
big enough issue to be worth agonizing
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 10:48:24 UTC, Sebastien Alaiwan
wrote:
"Encapsulation" is about implementation hiding and access
control ("public/private"), and requires programming language
support (e.g most dynamic languages don't have it).
"Encapsulation is sometimes referred to as the
On Thursday, 1 November 2018 at 03:10:22 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Actually, code within a module *should* be tightly coupled and
cohesive -- that's the whole reason to put that code inside a
single module in the first place. If two pieces of code inside
a module are only weakly coupled or
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 13:28:54 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
On 01/11/2018 2:25 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 13:22:28 UTC, rikki
cattermole wrote:
On 01/11/2018 2:16 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 at 05:42:26 UTC, Nicholas
Wilson
12 matches
Mail list logo
