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

[ProtectAndHide]

On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 02:26:44 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> 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).

My code in my previous post should make it clear what I'm saying. 
Stop misrepresenting my argument.

> 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.

First, who is 'we'? Likely the programmers that do need it, have 
decided to go elsewhere (where they can get it, and have likely 
had it, for decades - not in some obscure language, but in the 
most major languages being used.).

Second, you don't provide what I want. You can keep saying that 
you do, but that doesn't change it.

C++, C#, Swift, hell even Javascript.. they provide what I want. 
D does not. So don't say it does, until it does...and that day 
will come ;-)