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

[ProtectAndHide]

On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:34:13 UTC, thebluepandabear 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:06:18 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 07:13:41 UTC, 
>> thebluepandabear wrote:
>>>> Time to move on to OCaml programmers telling us D doesn't 
>>>> have floating point arithmetic because there's no `+.` 
>>>> operator.
>>>
>>> that's not the same thing though, you've created a great 
>>> false equivalence! Congrats.
>>
>> Only if you don't understand D's encapsulation. You're going 
>> on at length (apparently under multiple names in this thread) 
>> because you don't like D's implementation of encapsulation. 
>> That's no different from complaining that the `+` operator 
>> should be `+.`, and until D makes the change, it doesn't 
>> support floating point addition.
>>
>> There are reasonable arguments for changing and not changing 
>> D's implementation of encapsulation. Your claim that D doesn't 
>> support encapsulation is false.
>
> 'under multiple names'... You can clearly see I have the same 
> name, simply different profile pictures.


You should know by now, that anyone that supports the idea of D 
providing an explicit mechanism to support data hiding for a 
user-defined type, are all the **same** person.

Nobody else in the world supports such an idea.

It's all just one person... apparently ;-)