On Dec 16, 2011, at 12:26 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 12/16/11 1:07 PM, Sean Kelly wrote: >> This is fine, but the whole point of static ctors in D is to >> eliminate all the stupid workarounds required to use statics in C++. >> I'd much rather we find a way to make the use of static ctors more >> efficient than give up on the feature. > > I agree, but then I think we have a design that's already there. This > discusses working some kinks out of the implementation. Also, the context of > the runtime/standard library is an appropriate place to take less usual > measures for the benefit of many.
But at the same time, the standard library should be an example of how to do things "the right way." By preferring the C++ approach over static ctors in the standard library, we're suggesting that static ctors are not the right approach for the discriminating programmer. I do agree that the design is already there, but perhaps the implementation needs refinement?
