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

thebluepandabear thereabluepandabear at
Sat Feb 11 02:17:09 UTC 2023

> I'm not an advocate of any style in particular. I'm happy to 
> use any style that is clear to understand and use, suitable, 
> and can provide reasonable guarantees around memory safety and 
> correctness.
> But a language that claims to support OOP but doesn't even have 
> type privacy, is a bit of joke IMO.

agreed, the current behaviour of `private` is inexcusable, and 
it's something newcomers need to be warned about.

More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list