On Monday, 6 February 2023 at 21:46:29 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 2/6/23 12:56, ProtectAndHide wrote:
> I'm not going to 'go write a
> DIP'.
Nobody will write a DIP about it because very few people ever
mentioned this issue over the years.
And as 'static class' and 'static struct' are already usable in
D, a newcomer would definitely be confused with your "terrible"
conclusion.
Ali
You being a little agressive don't you think?
My observation is very reasonable, and correct, and a new comer
to D would do well to know that:
The compiler will allow you to do all these things, even if
you've @disable'd' the constructor, and have only static members:
- the compiler will allow you to declare a variable of that type
- the compiler will allow you to declare an array with elements
of that type
- the compiler will allow you to use that type as a type argument
- the compiler will allow you to use that type as a parameter
- the compiler will allow you to use that type as a return type
I can see no reason why anyone would want to do these things, in
this context.
Nor can I see any reason, whatsoever, why the compiler would
allow you to do these things, in this context.
It's not about me trying to remove power from the programmer.
That's a nonsense argument, without any basis, whatsoever. It's
just a (correct) observation.
Further comments that try to derail this will be ignored.
