On 03/30/2016 07:26 AM, Joe Watkins wrote:
Morning Pieere, Dmitry, all ...
Actually it's not so simple ... for object properties we have
ASSIGN_OBJ opcode, but we don't have a special opcode for static
properties, and ASSIGN doesn't have any information about where the
var came from, and nor should it have that information ...
I'm going to stick the original decision, static properties don't
belong until typed variables are a thing ...
You make decisions, because of implementation troubles :)
Anyway, RFC should get a note about missing support for static properties.
Thanks. Dmitry.
Cheers
Joe
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com
<mailto:pierre....@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2016 10:17 AM, "Joe Watkins" <pthre...@pthreads.org
<mailto:pthre...@pthreads.org>> wrote:
>
> Morning Dmitry,
>
> > 1) static typed properties are prohibited. why?
>
> Feels like that's a separate feature, static properties are as
good as
> makes no difference, global variables.
>
> Instance properties, the engine has good control over their
manipulation,
> for static properties it doesn't, it's not impossible, but feels
separate.
Internally different but from users perspective it is the same (a
class property). It would be nice to support that at the same time
to avoid confusion.
