https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18757
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P3
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18757
Andrei Alexandrescu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||and...@erdani.com
--- Comment #8 from
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18757
Walter Bright changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bugzi...@digitalmars.com
Hardware|
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18757
--- Comment #6 from FeepingCreature ---
In my opinion, static this sets the precedent that static + class-level feature
= module-level feature.
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18757
Jonathan M Davis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||issues.dl...@jmdavisprog.co
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18757
--- Comment #4 from RazvanN ---
(In reply to uplink.coder from comment #3)
> Well invariants cannot apply to static methods since they are only concerned
> about the object's state.
> which by definition cannot be directly touched in static functions
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18757
uplink.co...@googlemail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uplink.co...@googlemail.com
---
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18757
--- Comment #2 from FeepingCreature ---
In case 1, I maintain that this is a bug - the compiler should not
smile-and-nod while silently ignoring syntax that hints at a semantic that does
not apply.
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18757
RazvanN changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||razvan.nitu1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Razv
