Clemens: > What problems does the static inner function idiom create? It's clean, safe, > performant,<
Clean: requiring 3-4 extra lines of code and a second name (for the inner function) is less clean. Generally it's better to minimize the number of names that you need to invent in a program. Safe: it requires more code than just a single "private", so there's a little more chance of bugs: if you take a look at the code I've written in one of the last posts you can see I've forgotten to add "static". Performant: the performance is probably the same if compiled with LDC, but there are two functions, one function call to remove/inline, while the "private" requires no extra work to the optimizer. Idiomatic/documentation: adding "private" in that way you state clearly the purpose of what you are doing, and this can be understood by documentation generator software and IDEs too, while the idiom of a nested static function called inside the outer is less explicit. The semantics is about the same, but the first version shows the purpose directly. Bye, bearophile
