On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 16:04:02 UTC, eles wrote:
> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 15:44:36 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 12:36:41 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:54:55 +0000
>>> John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I disagree. It's simple and easy to understand.
>>> and hackish.
>>
>> D is very amenable to slightly hackish code.
>>
>>>> This is the only genuine problem I can see that requires a language extension. Separating class definition from method definition in to different compilation units doesn't allow access to private members without very nasty hacks.
>>
>>> no hacks needed.
>>
>> I meant that without a language change, one does need hacks.
>
> So, you admit it is a hack! Gotcha!

In order to get access to private variables from another compilation unit, yes, you need some nasty hackiness. I haven't presented such a hack though.

On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 19:03:13 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 16:04:02 UTC, eles wrote:
>> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 15:44:36 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
>>> On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 12:36:41 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2014 11:54:55 +0000
>>>> John Colvin via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com>

> In order to get access to private variables from another compilation unit, yes, you need some nasty hackiness. I haven't presented such a hack though.

I know. Was not serious.