On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 10:02:01PM +0000, forkit via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 21:47:16 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > 
> 
> as I recall, it was *your* post about "Using closure in function scope to make "real" private class members" that started this whole thing.
> 
> ;-)
> 
> Sadly, this idea is *always* responded to, by others, in a typical passive/aggressive manner (which is what causes all the controversy):
> 
> https://medium.com/the-mission/5-tactics-used-by-passive-aggressive-arguers-and-the-best-forms-of-defense-42a9348b60ed

LOL... I've been around here since 2011, it's obvious that certain personages are around for the sole purpose of stirring up the mud. Others are good faith complainants who have been struggling with long-term unresolved issues (sometimes I'm among them).  Put these two together, and this is what you get. :-/

If one tries hard enough, one can always find *something* to complain about. For example, in the code I posted in this thread, there's that is(... : __parameters) construct which has some, shall we say, quirky, behaviours, about which I wrote years ago:

	https://forum.dlang.org/thread/vpjpqfiqxkmeavtxhyla@forum.dlang.org

If you really wanted to, that thread could be the basis of another interminable complaint thread about is(...).  Instead, I found something to like about it, which is the whole point of *this* thread.  What can I say? It's one of those glass-half-full vs. glass-half-empty scenarios. It speaks more about the person(s) than about the D language itself. :-D


T

-- 
Life would be easier if I had the source code. -- YHL

On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 23:06:52 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2022 at 10:02:01PM +0000, forkit via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 21:47:16 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> > 
>> 
>> as I recall, it was *your* post about "Using closure in function scope to make "real" private class members" that started this whole thing.
>> 
>> ;-)
>> 
>> Sadly, this idea is *always* responded to, by others, in a typical passive/aggressive manner (which is what causes all the controversy):
>> 
>> https://medium.com/the-mission/5-tactics-used-by-passive-aggressive-arguers-and-the-best-forms-of-defense-42a9348b60ed
>
> LOL... I've been around here since 2011, it's obvious that certain personages are around for the sole purpose of stirring up the mud. Others are good faith complainants who have been struggling with long-term unresolved issues (sometimes I'm among them).  Put these two together, and this is what you get. :-/
>
> If one tries hard enough, one can always find *something* to complain about. For example, in the code I posted in this thread, there's that is(... : __parameters) construct which has some, shall we say, quirky, behaviours, about which I wrote years ago:
>
> 	https://forum.dlang.org/thread/vpjpqfiqxkmeavtxhyla@forum.dlang.org
>
> If you really wanted to, that thread could be the basis of another interminable complaint thread about is(...).  Instead, I found something to like about it, which is the whole point of *this* thread.  What can I say? It's one of those glass-half-full vs. glass-half-empty scenarios. It speaks more about the person(s) than about the D language itself. :-D
>
>
> T

Well, look, in the end, the argument for co-operative mutability for code within a module, is valid - in some cases.

In some cases, it's not valid.

Both points of view are valid.

So, yes, it's a glass half full...thing.

There is something to 'like' about how the D module implements private, and there is also something to 'not like' about it.

That only one side can be correct in this argument, is (as Spock would say).. illogical.

D is missing the feature I find to be one of the most important features in my design considerations.

That's worth speaking up about.

So I'd encourage everyone to 'speak up' about the features that are important to them.

Life is change. No change. No life.