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
