--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Damian wrote: > > Hence, I would argue, one ought to simply mark it with a trait: > > FWIW, I personally think this is _absolutely_ the right approach.
Hear him! I don't think anyone disagrees that staticness is a trait. (After all, even the folks that pull for "static" will be pulling for just that -- a storage class specifier.) > 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. Frankly, this is a weak argument. Especially, as Larry points out, since this will be one of the first macros out there. > > > 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. > Of the three, "kept" has problems since we're looking at a "keep" verb someplace. I'd recommend "preserved". > 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. Yeah. Persistent is accurate, but has been preempted for use in the "offline-storage" context of persistence. =Austin
