On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 06:31:01 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
On Saturday, 9 July 2016 at 04:32:25 UTC, Andrew Godfrey wrote:
Aha! But I don't! It feels intuitive, possibly the best use of
"static". But that is immaterial, what matters is the sum of
all meanings of "static" in this language. The "single
instance per class" meaning of "static" is just bonkers. I've
had that meaning burned into my brain for a couple of decades,
from C++. But I don't have to like it!
I could stomach it, though, if that was the only use of the
keyword. (Or if the other meanings couldn't be used in the
same contexts).
The name is fine. It comes from 'statically bound/dispatched',
that is 'resolved at compile time'.
This is a tangent from the subject of this thread, but: No, that
just says how it is implemented, not what it means / intends. See
"the 7 stages of naming", here:
http://arlobelshee.com/good-naming-is-a-process-not-a-single-step/
(That resource is talking about identifier naming, not keywords.
But it applies anyway.)
