Non-ugly ways to implement a 'static' class or namespace?
thereabluepandabear at protonmail.com
Sat Feb 11 02:17:09 UTC 2023
> I'm not an advocate of any style in particular. I'm happy to
> use any style that is clear to understand and use, suitable,
> and can provide reasonable guarantees around memory safety and
> But a language that claims to support OOP but doesn't even have
> type privacy, is a bit of joke IMO.
agreed, the current behaviour of `private` is inexcusable, and
it's something newcomers need to be warned about.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn