On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 10:46:33 UTC, forkit wrote:
>
> My point is, either it supports one of the most important aspects I've worked with in OOP over 20 years, or it doesn't.
>
> i.e. it doesn't.
>
> would be nice if it did - 'if' it could fit in the language and work well with other things.
>
> are you suggesting i want it in the language, no matter what the cost is?

I am suggesting that if I copied and pasted some random D feature in another language, it may not fit in that language, because the context is different. D has already some features that don't play along well together (immutability and OOP, for instance).

I am suggesting that 'because some other language has it' is not a valid argument, whether or not that language is successful.

I am suggesting language design is hard.

I am suggesting you write a DIP, so you can come with an evaluation of this cost, since you are the one asking for it.

On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 11:48:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 11:40:16 UTC, forkit wrote:
>> the constraint is optional, just as using meta programming is optional.
>
> It isn't optional if you write libraries that other people depend on. If someone gives your library a type, then you need to deal with that type.

well I've never written a library that others depends on to do metaprogramming ;-)

what I'm saying, is if you do, the design constraint is optional.

I cannot answer the question as to whether allowing a class to have members that are private to the class, would have a negative impact on metaprogramming in D.

If someone is saying that it will, then .. can they please explain how and why that would be, so we can all understand?

On Thursday, 16 June 2022 at 11:10:33 UTC, Kagamin wrote:

>
> When you have a lazily initialized field, you need to use an accessor, because if you read the raw field, you get an uninitialized value and error as a result, so only the accessor should have access to the field.

You can do that already for static/global functions by placing the cache in the function scope. In D, you can't access a function's scope at all, so it is true encapsulation.