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

[ProtectAndHide]

On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 20:05:06 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 2/8/23 04:07, zjh wrote:
>
> > Last time, someone proposed to add `private` like `C++'s`,
>
> We've discussed the 'private' topic very many times already. 
> C++'s private necessitate the 'friend' keyword, which comes 
> with it's own problems.
>
> Besides, D has zero problems with its private implementation in 
> the sense that there has been zero bugs related to it being 
> that way. Given the number of individuals who bring this topic 
> up over and over up is so few that I don't think there is a 
> common problem.
>
> Do you have actual bugs related to this? "Wanting" the 
> inclusion of a feature is sufficient.
>
> In contrast, I use D every day and love its relaxed attitude 
> towards private.
>
> > and then it
> > was the same,they are always unwilling to add facilities
> useful
>
> That is not correct. The truth is, nobody is jumping to 
> implementations just because some people think they are useful. 
> There are always valid reasons for including a feature or not.
>
> Ali

You mentioned previously that D implements various things in 
unprincipled ways.

I guess, if one wants to use D, one has to be comfortable with 
this.

But using a relaxed attitude towards the implementation of such a 
common and important abstraction, that in turn allows me to so 
easily shoot myself in the foot, is not really an attractive 
feature .. to me ;-)

btw. When a newbie to D raises ideas, suggestions, etc... and you 
counter them with (in essence) 'we don't need that in D, but go 
write a dip if you think we do' attitude, is a real turn off.