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

[zjh]

On Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 20:05:06 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> On 2/8/23 04:07, zjh wrote:
>

> Besides, D has zero problems with its private implementation in 
> the sense that there has been zero bugs related to it being 
> that way. In contrast, I use D every day and love its relaxed 
> attitude towards private.
>
>
> Ali


That comrade has mentioned it `many(>10) times`!
`Private` can be used for two purposes. 1 is `module private`. 2 
is `class private`!.
However, you only provide `module private`, so programmers who 
want to use private classes as private classes leave, and then 
`D` continues to stay in a very small community. few man comes 
in!.
Like me, from C++, I didn't even use `friend` once! It's useless 
for me! But the "`private`" of "C++" is just right for me!.
But `D` refused to admit that `private` has two purposes! He said 
that you can only use private modules. Don't move around. It will 
increase `complexity` and make novices `afraid`!
In this way, I will only stay in `C++`, because there are more 
and more features of `C++`, and I use them `more and more`!