On 9/2/23 19:22, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 2, 2023 at 4:18 PM Jason McKesson wrote:
>>
>> You keep talking about syntax as though that was the problem. It isn't.
>>
>> You are asking to be able to trivially bypass access controls. That's
>> the feature you want.
>>
>> That is not a thing the language should provide. It renders access
>> controls essentially meaningless. The syntax by which it is provided
>> is irrelevant when the *functionalty itself* is a bad idea.
>
>
> Computer programmers are one of very few kinds of technical worker in
> which this attitude is pervasive.
>
> You can have a tight system in place, adhere to that system and abide
> by its stipulations thoroughly, and yet _still_ provide a means to
> circumvent the system in the event of a corner case.
>
> You also seem to have no concept of harm reduction. C++ programmers
> around the world today are typing out "#define private public".

This last claim needs some proof. In my >20 years of programming, I
never had to do this, and I have a really hard time believing this is
such a widely used practice that it requires to be part of the language.