On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 09:38:24 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

Not in this case. I already proposed something that can work without providing attribute soup.

Just extend the private access modifier to allow an optional specifier such as class/struct.

https://forum.dlang.org/post/wmamhwkfdqgzaqndgaus@forum.dlang.org

Ex.

class Foo
{
  private int a; // private to module
  private class int b; // private to class
}

On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 09:38:24 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
but then there

Will it be so troublesome if it is well encapsulation?

On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 09:55:00 UTC, bauss wrote:

class Foo
{
  private int a; // private to module
  private class int b; // private to class
}

Could also be like this instead:

class Foo
{
  private int a; // private to module
  private this int b; // private to class
}

Thinking about it using this instead of class/struct is probably better, since it doesn't make sense to restrict to anything else other than itself.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 09:55:00 UTC, bauss wrote:

class Foo
{
  private int a; // private to module
  private class int b; // private to class
}

Right,No damage at all!

On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 09:55:00 UTC, bauss wrote:

I guess this is where ideas about aesthetics, consistency and usability differ. My view is that all of the proposed syntaxes are bad and would be confusing to people coming to the language. All proposal signal that something went wrong and somebody patched it up with band-aid and duct-tape.

And you still get one more case to deal with if you want to reason about this in meta programming.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 10:00:37 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:

But so is the current behavior to people that come to the language.

I see people asking every other week about why something isn't "private".

I think a lot of other people can testify to that too.

The solutions where at least allow one to opt-out of something, it's completely optional and it won't confuse anyone who don't use it.

In fact it might make it more understandable since you will realize that what you thought was private wasn't really private and that if you want it private to something then you specify "this".

It's much better than the current system where you have to move your classes to a new module, because then you lose all friend capabilities.

In some cases you might want both and D does not give you that.

You have to pick either friends only or privates only.

On Wednesday, 8 June 2022 at 10:20:37 UTC, bauss wrote:

They would also ask what "private class" means. If you are gonna do it, do at least propose a proper keyword for it: local, hidden, internal…

Anything simple is better than @keyword, private(this), private class etc. Such syntax screams "amateur project" and I wouldn't even consider downloading a language like that. When I first tried D it was because the syntax looked clean (way before the @madness caught on).