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

[Mike Parker]

On Wednesday, 15 February 2023 at 20:10:31 UTC, ProtectAndHide 
wrote:

>
> What Mike is arguing, is that I don't need a 'data hiding' 
> mechanism for a user-defined type, because that is already 
> provided to me by the 'data hiding' mechanism of the module.
>
> That is his argument.
>
> My argument is that I want 'data hiding' mechanism at the 
> user-defined type level as well.
>
> Again, his argument is that i don't need it.. because...
>
>

Wrong. I'm arguing  things:

1. D has encapsulation (you say it doesn't).
2. We don't need a new protection attribute or a redefinition of 
private because D already provides the mechanism to give you what 
you want.