On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 04:24:11 UTC, Theo wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 03:18:09 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
>> On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 09:24:57 UTC, Theo wrote:
>>> Personally, I've always preferred the Nike theory: Just do it!
>>>
>>> If we want to see progress, like you suggest, then the Nike theory is worth a try ;-)
>>
>> What is the nike? Shoes Brand 😀
>>
>
> Yes ;-)
>
> I think it's the best advertising pitch ever!
>
> It the *universal* principle of how to actually get things done.

My brother tried "just walking to the north pole"

He died.

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 14:36:42 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 5/19/23 21:16, Theo wrote:
>
> > I studied and wrote about this very topic, extensively, [...]
>
> That doesn't mean you should accept it. Critical mind is a part of science as well.
>

Umm.. you don't get awared a degree in science without a critical mind.

Personal views play no part in a degree in science.

I also have no personal view on the 'self', except, that I don't really understand what it is, exactly ;-)   .. the biological self I understand. The self that we make up for ourselves, or others make up for us, is at best .. a polysemous concept.

Enought talk of the self anyway. Lets put that aside.

> For me, one of the most important signals is contradiction: No person who claims to have a scientific mind should be blind to it. No matter what the motivations of authors, journals, readers, and universities may be. Contradiction is a fundamental signal that will guide you the right direction.
>
> > I don't want people preaching to me on this, or any other
> matter.
>
> Nobody did that. There was just an announcement about an organizational method.
>

That is not how I understood the announcement. It sounded like a philosophy how to to make D great again, was going to be preached to all of us - including at Dconf.

> I know I shouldn't preach about the futility of hurting people under infinite pseudonyms just to get class private in the language. You need strong support for such a weak feature, which will never come from trolling. You pull me into an off-topic hypothesis just to get class private? Good luck to you with that and I go to my Thunderbird settings.
>
> Ali

This is the exact vitriole that one has to put up with, just for wanting to be able to declare a class member private within a module.

someone: "I want an option to have a class member to be private with a module."

10's of others: "That's an utterly ridiculous, perverted idea for the D language. Stop trolling us. OOP is bulls%%#. Nothing needs to be private. Just use structs and make everything public! We don't do that OOP crap in D anymore! If you keep saying this, we're going to block you, and we're going to filter you out in our Thunderbird settings.."

and around and around it goes.... even still it seems (you being one of the main contributors to this merry-go-round!).

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 23:21:48 UTC, Theo wrote:
> someone: "I want an option to have a class member to be private with a module."
>
> 10's of others: "That's an utterly ridiculous, perverted idea for the D language. Stop trolling us. OOP is bulls%%#. Nothing needs to be private. Just use structs and make everything public! We don't do that OOP crap in D anymore! If you keep saying this, we're going to block you, and we're going to filter you out in our Thunderbird settings.."
>
> and around and around it goes.... even still it seems (you being one of the main contributors to this merry-go-round!).

Hello, forkit. I see you have yet to compose a DIP.

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 14:39:08 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 5/19/23 21:38, Theo wrote:
>
> > Please don't mispresent what you clearly do not understand.
>
> I know I understand.
>
> > If you won't to focus on personal beliefs, I refer you to:
> >
> > https://www.altereducation.org/
> >
> > (an organistaion founded by the very same person promoting
> IVY).
>
> And your point is?
>
> > I do NOT imply there is anything wrong with what he is
> promoting.
>
> Ah! But you still bring it up. Hm? I wonder why?
>

Because DLF is wanting to promote IVY, which like Alter Education, has an agenda.

The agenda itself might be fine, or not. That is for each person to decide.

But you cannot decide without knowing the agenda, can you?

I know you would prefer to suggest to others that I think there is something sinister his that agenda. I don't. I'm simply pointing out there is an agenda. But that argument of yours, sure sounds like it would suit your agenda - which is against me, and very personal it seems.


> > I'm
> > simply pointing out, that he is being driven by his personal
> beliefs,
> > and other should be allowed to the same thing. But none of
> these should
> > have any role in the D forums, nor at Dconf. That really, is
> my point.
>
> Your want to get class private by trolling.
>
> Ali

Honestly, you're vitriole towards me is getting rather silly.

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 23:24:12 UTC, surlymoor wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 23:21:48 UTC, Theo wrote:
>> someone: "I want an option to have a class member to be private with a module."
>>
>> 10's of others: "That's an utterly ridiculous, perverted idea for the D language. Stop trolling us. OOP is bulls%%#. Nothing needs to be private. Just use structs and make everything public! We don't do that OOP crap in D anymore! If you keep saying this, we're going to block you, and we're going to filter you out in our Thunderbird settings.."
>>
>> and around and around it goes.... even still it seems (you being one of the main contributors to this merry-go-round!).
>
> Hello, forkit. I see you have yet to compose a DIP.

And we're off... again.

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 21:08:29 UTC, claptrap wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 04:24:11 UTC, Theo wrote:
>> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 03:18:09 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 09:24:57 UTC, Theo wrote:
>>>> Personally, I've always preferred the Nike theory: Just do it!
>>>>
>>>> If we want to see progress, like you suggest, then the Nike theory is worth a try ;-)
>>>
>>> What is the nike? Shoes Brand 😀
>>>
>>
>> Yes ;-)
>>
>> I think it's the best advertising pitch ever!
>>
>> It the *universal* principle of how to actually get things done.
>
> My brother tried "just walking to the north pole"
>
> He died.

Any response to that would come across a being insensitive, no matter how well intentioned.

I suggest we bring this conversation to quick end, now, and focus on what Mike just posted recently: "And anyway, the value in these planning sessions is what they produce, not how we get there."

That's what I'm interested in. What is produced.

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 14:39:08 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>
> ....
> Your want to get class private by trolling.
>
> Ali

I'd also like to highlight, the difference between your approach to the request for class private members within a module, and the approach of Dennis Korpel, who kept the personal 'stuff' out of it, and just focused on how it could be done, and not whether it should be done.

That kind of response by Dennis, is the kind of response that is 'motivating'.

I wish there were more people like Dennis in the D 'community'.

(again, Dennis did not do it because he wanted it, necessarily, but because he wanted to see how it could be done).

I hope others can follow Dennis's lead.

The constant 'obstructionist approach', personal vitriole approach, and 'go write a DIP approach', which has come to define too much of the D forums, and the response of too many in the D 'community', at least for me, is not at all motivating.

If their were a rotating stewardship for D, I'd be voting for Dennis to be on the next round of stewardship (even if he never supports class private finding its way into D ;-)

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 23:24:12 UTC, surlymoor wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 23:21:48 UTC, Theo wrote:
>> someone: "I want an option to have a class member to be private with a module."
>>
>> 10's of others: "That's an utterly ridiculous, perverted idea for the D language. Stop trolling us. OOP is bulls%%#. Nothing needs to be private. Just use structs and make everything public! We don't do that OOP crap in D anymore! If you keep saying this, we're going to block you, and we're going to filter you out in our Thunderbird settings.."
>>
>> and around and around it goes.... even still it seems (you being one of the main contributors to this merry-go-round!).
>
> Hello, forkit. I see you have yet to compose a DIP.

Well, now that you've brought the topic up....

The DIP would basically be as simple as this.

// ---

module someClass;

class C
{
   private(this) int x;
   void increment() {++x;}
}

unittest
{
    auto c = new C;
    c.x++; // please compiler, don't allow this - this was an typing accident.
    c.increment(); // yes, this was my intention. Thanks to private(this), the compiler now knows this too (not to mention people who look at the code).
}

// ----

The only objection I've encountered to this idea, seems to be wholly based on the idealogy of the sanctity of marriage .. I mean... the module.

Modularity and encapsulation can (and should be allowed to) apply at many levels of ones code (enums, functions, classes, module, packages....).

At the moment, there is no way to declare this intent in D. You have to put the unittest in a separate file as well - but even then, that does show intent, it's merely a workaround because you cannot delcare that intent .. in D.

On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 23:45:48 UTC, Theo wrote:
> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 21:08:29 UTC, claptrap wrote:
>> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 04:24:11 UTC, Theo wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 20 May 2023 at 03:18:09 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, 18 May 2023 at 09:24:57 UTC,

>> My brother tried "just walking to the north pole"
>>
>> He died.
>
> Any response to that would come across a being insensitive, no matter how well intentioned.

Well he was drunk and wearing flip flops.

What i might be trying to say is that "just do it" is to psychology what "stuff falls down" is to physics.