Non-ugly ways to implement a 'static' class or namespace?

[Ali Çehreli]

On 2/6/23 23:45, ProtectAndHide wrote:

 > Well I don't agree that D should boast about things that's its
 > implemented in an unprincipled way.

Here, "unprincipled"[1] is just a descriptive word meaning that D does 
not insist on certain software engineering methodologies e.g. unlike 
Java where "everything is a class" or unlike some functional programming 
languages where "everything must be immutable".[2]

 > an unprincipled
 > implementation of something that just allows you do make mistakes, then
 > it should be looked at further, so see if it can be improved.

Agreed. But the lack of 'static class' in D or its approximations are 
not in that category. I can imagine someone coming up ingeniously with a 
harmful way of using 'static class' but unless that is a real problem 
that affects D users then there is no issue.

Ali

[1] I remember reading or hearing "unprincipled" from Andrei 
Alexandrescu long time ago.

[2] Actually, const and immutable being transitive can be seen as 
counter examples of D having a strong point on something. I think this 
"turtles all the way down" is not agreed by many users.