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

[bachmeier]

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 10:16:47 UTC, ProtectAndHide 
wrote:

> 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.