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

[thebluepandabear]

On Tuesday, 14 February 2023 at 15:34:17 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> 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.

D is still an OOP language, as long as it has classes, 
inheritance, and polymorphism, though it's certainly not a good 
one if any class can acccess private members from the module, 
that's just horrid.