Hence, I would argue, one ought to simply mark it with a trait:
FWIW, I personally think this is _absolutely_ the right approach. Using a trait is a very visible, very obvious way to say what's going on that is probably easier to remember than adding another keyword to the [my|our|temp|let] group. While I, too, immediately understood what 'has' meant, I can't help but feel many people won't get it.
As others have pointed out, the problem with 'static' is not only that (a) it has too many C++ meanings, but (b) the word itself implies 'constant', not 'persistent'. I would really, really like for us to not use that already-abused word.
is retained
is preserved
is kept
These three, I think, show the most promise. Or the linguistically dubious "is once", maybe. The others like "is saved/stored/restored" might be taken for serialization-style persistence.
David Landgren wrote:
I expected to see 'is persistent' as a possible name. Or does that denote serialisation too much?
I think so... I thought about that too, but I think "persistent" is becoming synonymous with "serialized & stored" these days.
MikeL
