Would have been much better in my opinion, if D had maintained a C like struct (not a C++ like struct), and a C++ like class. That would have solved the problem you identified, while still allowing for the class to be what it was designed to be. The mistake C++ made was the mistake you identified. But the solution you provided in D is its own mistake.

..and in the context of a module.. not even used as a type at all.

Ah! Okay, that’s what I was missing. I found the blog posts on using malloc and free from D. I knew the GC could be disabled, but I wasn’t aware of how practical it was to manually manage memory. Thanks!