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

[Ali Çehreli]

On 2/9/23 14:34, ProtectAndHide wrote:

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

I think you will continue misunderstanding that term. What it means is, 
D does not insist on certain programming paradigms over others. For 
example, you can code in structured, functional, object-oriented, etc. 
styles depending on your problem.

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

I can't see how being free is something that one needs to be comfortable 
with but I guess you are correct.

 > 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 ;-)

Thanks for the wink.

 > btw. When a newbie to D raises ideas, suggestions, etc... and you
 > counter them with (in essence)

That is not the essence at all! There has been numerous responses here 
before I reminded how the path is actually open for language changes.

 > 'we don't need that in D, but go write a
 > dip if you think we do' attitude, is a real turn off.

What was the alternative? Jumping to implementations of all suggested 
features? A bigger turn off would be forkit!

Ali