On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:10:26 -0500, Bill Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Leandro Lucarella <[email protected]>
wrote:
rmcguire, el 3 de noviembre a las 15:11 me escribiste:
Andrei Alexandrescu <[email protected]> wrote:
I really like 'static' as the namespace, it would be awesome if it did
not just
contain 'meta' stuff.
Could we lose 'pragma', 'typeof', unary 'is', 'typeid', '__traits'.
It makes a lot of sense to just say to someone "if you want to do
something at
compile time, just check the 'static' documentation".
static.if(...) {
static.foreach(...) {
static.assert(...) {
}
}
}
=P
At first I thought this was another joke about how overused "static"
is. But actually it does kinda make sense here.
--bb
I agree. Though, other keywords could work in this manner just as well
(pragma comes to mind), which would reduce static to just member variables
and functions.
