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

[ProtectAndHide]

On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 21:56:03 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 21:23:53 UTC, ProtectAndHide 
> wrote:
>
>> Forcing programmers to use a design mechanism rather than a 
>> language mechanism to achieve the above abstraction is wrong. 
>> This seems to be the source of the disagreement, correct?
>
> There's no disagreement. It's you posting the same false claim 
> again and again (presumably because you're hoping it will come 
> up when someone does a search for it, or some similar reason) 
> and others explaining why you're wrong.
>
> If you don't want to use the language, don't use it. You have 
> your subjective preferences. You are unable to muster a good 
> argument in favor of it. There's no reason to (yet again) post 
> the same thing over and over.

It's your claim that is false.

What I outlined is correct. I've even shown code that clearly 
demonatrates it.

I don't know how you can call those claims false. They are fact. 
And any D programmers know what I've said is correct.

The disagreement, is whether D should do something about it. Not 
that what I've demonstrated is incorrect.

Also, I don't keep posting just cause I like to doing it. I'm 
responding to people like you who continually make accusations 
against me which are not correct.

Try focusing on the source of the disagreement, and not on 
personal issues.

Then we will not have this constant to and fro. Instead, we will 
end up disagreeing on some language design issue, and that will 
be that.

Stop making it personal!