On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 12:44:19 UTC, zjh wrote:
Right... They greatly increase your code maintenance work!
Many people left D because of these small details!
Their encapsulation can actually leakage class members.
Programmers in other languages will laugh cry!
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 02:56:28 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
What a joke. Even Javascript can do this (and the compile will
enforce it too).
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Classes/Private_class_fields
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' m
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' m
On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 02:26:44 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Wrong. I'm arguing things:
Geez. "I'm arguing 2 things:"
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 tha
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:34:13 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:06:18 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 07:13:41 UTC,
thebluepandabear wrote:
Time to move on to OCaml programmers telling us D doesn't
have floating point arithmet
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:06:18 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 07:13:41 UTC,
thebluepandabear wrote:
Time to move on to OCaml programmers telling us D doesn't
have floating point arithmetic because there's no `+.`
operator.
that's not the same thing though,
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:10:31 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
...
this is not to be personal, just to make an analogy about the
point being made:
if Mike was a car salesperson, he'd be arguing that I don't need
an automatic transmission. I can already do it manually. Why
should we
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:01:12 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 19:44:50 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
A user-defined type is a type that has a mechanism to keep it
representation private.
D does not support this. It only enables it.
You (and others) may well
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 07:13:41 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
Time to move on to OCaml programmers telling us D doesn't have
floating point arithmetic because there's no `+.` operator.
that's not the same thing though, you've created a great false
equivalence! Congrats.
Only if you
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 19:44:50 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
"The basic support for programming with data abstraction consists
of facilities for defining a set of operations (functions and
operators) for a type and for restricting the access to objects
of the type to that set of op
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 19:44:50 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
A user-defined type is a type that has a mechanism to keep it
representation private.
D does not support this. It only enables it.
You (and others) may well argue that D should not enable this
(directly), it should only s
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 10:17:30 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
I referenced that in my post. The exact same problem exists
*inside* the class when your class file is very long. You can
easily manipulate the private member even when it's only
supposed to be accessed by a specific function.
I want to know if there is some way to debug memory leaks in
runtime.
I have been dealing with that by using a profiler and checking D
runtime function calls. Usually those which allocates has high
cpu usage so it can be easy for those bigger ones. While for the
smaller ones, this approach do
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 09:57:56 UTC, ProtectAndHide
wrote:
In a module that contains a class, and other code as well
(perhaps other tightly coupled classes), you can know
**nothing** at all about that type (or any other class) without
knowing **everything** else in the module. If o
On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 17:49:58 UTC, Paolo Invernizzi
wrote:
```
import std.format, std.range.primitives;
struct Point(T)
{
T x, y;
void toString(W)(ref W writer, scope const ref
FormatSpec!char f) const
if (isOutputRange!(W, char))
{
put(writer, "(");
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Our friend of many forum handles misses no opportunity to
return to this putrid horse corpse to beat it some more, but
the meaning of private isn't going to change. This is D's
approach to encapsulation.
It seems the only be
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
Our friend of many forum handles misses no opportunity to
return to this putrid horse corpse to beat it some more, but
the meaning of private isn't going to change. This is D's
approach to encapsulation.
It seems the only be
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 10:17:30 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
We keep repeating the same arguments over and over and over
again on this. I still haven't seen any convincing argument for
changing things when it's already possible to do what you want
to do. I repeat for the umpteenth time:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 10:17:30 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
I referenced that in my post. The exact same problem exists
*inside* the class when your class file is very long. You can
easily manipulate the private member even when it's only
supposed to be accessed by a specific function.
On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 18:30:05 UTC, seany wrote:
Hello
Consider the content of a file
First line \n
Second line
data data data data ... last char
My goal is to find out whether the last character is a new line
or not. Please not, it will be sufficient if this w
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 09:51:41 UTC, zjh wrote:
What if two classes in the module that are several meters apart
make `mistakes` that change the privite variable of `another
class`?
No one can guarantee that after `a few months`, even if you are
the author, you will not make mist
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 09:51:41 UTC, zjh wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 08:57:27 UTC, Mike Parker
wrote:
I meant to say, it "wouldn't add more".
What if two classes in the module that are several meters apart
make `mistakes` that change the privite variable of `another
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 07:23:39 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 02:14:30 UTC, Mike Parker
wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 01:16:00 UTC,
thebluepandabear wrote:
I think what you could say is that D lacks _encapsulation_
which is also an OOP
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 08:57:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
I meant to say, it "wouldn't add more".
What if two classes in the module that are several meters apart
make `mistakes` that change the privite variable of `another
class`?
No one can guarantee that after `a few months`, e
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 08:57:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Mike Parker
wrote:
If private were restricted to the class/struct, it would add
anything more for encapsulation in D.
I meant to say, it "wouldn't add more".
Well, to quote St
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 08:56:00 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
If private were restricted to the class/struct, it would add
anything more for encapsulation in D.
I meant to say, it "wouldn't add more".
On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 07:23:39 UTC, thebluepandabear
wrote:
Why is the unit of encapsulation the module though? Makes no
sense.
What is the purpose of encapsulation? To keep the implementation
details hidden behind the public API, such that changing the
implementation doesn't
29 matches
Mail list logo
