Non-ugly ways to implement a 'static' class or namespace?
no at spam.net
Tue Feb 14 15:34:17 UTC 2023
On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 10:16:47 UTC, ProtectAndHide
> In any case, there is nothing 'picky' about wanting to be able
> to explicately 'declare' a member of my class type as being
> private. That to me, is what a programmer should expect to be
> able to do in a language that says it supports OOP.
What you are saying is that you want an implementation of a
particular language that calls itself an OOP language. [There is
a lot of controversy about the definition of
OOP](https://wiki.c2.com/?NobodyAgreesOnWhatOoIs). I do not think
the explicit ability to declare a member of a class private in a
particular way has anything to do with it. You are certainly
entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't help to say D is not an
OOP language because you don't like some of the design decisions.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn