On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 02:26:44 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:10:31 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
What Mike is arguing, is that I don't need a 'data hiding'
mechanism for a user-defined type, because that is already
provided to me by the 'data hiding' mechanism of the module.
That is his argument.
My argument is that I want 'data hiding' mechanism at the
user-defined type level as well.
Again, his argument is that i don't need it.. because...
Wrong. I'm arguing things:
1. D has encapsulation (you say it doesn't).
My code in my previous post should make it clear what I'm saying.
Stop misrepresenting my argument.
2. We don't need a new protection attribute or a redefinition
of private because D already provides the mechanism to give you
what you want.
First, who is 'we'? Likely the programmers that do need it, have
decided to go elsewhere (where they can get it, and have likely
had it, for decades - not in some obscure language, but in the
most major languages being used.).
Second, you don't provide what I want. You can keep saying that
you do, but that doesn't change it.
C++, C#, Swift, hell even Javascript.. they provide what I want.
D does not. So don't say it does, until it does...and that day
will come ;-)
