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

[thebluepandabear via Digitalmars-d-learn]

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.