Robert Jacques Wrote: > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:10:26 -0500, Bill Baxter <wbax...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Leandro Lucarella <llu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> rmcguire, el 3 de noviembre a las 15:11 me escribiste: > >>> Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: > >>> I really like 'static' as the namespace, it would be awesome if it did > >>> not just > >>> contain 'meta' stuff. > >>> > >>> Could we lose 'pragma', 'typeof', unary 'is', 'typeid', '__traits'. > >>> > >>> It makes a lot of sense to just say to someone "if you want to do > >>> something at > >>> compile time, just check the 'static' documentation". > >> > >> static.if(...) { > >> static.foreach(...) { > >> static.assert(...) { > >> } > >> } > >> } > >> > >> =P > >> > > > > At first I thought this was another joke about how overused "static" > > is. But actually it does kinda make sense here. > > > > --bb > > I agree. Though, other keywords could work in this manner just as well > (pragma comes to mind), which would reduce static to just member variables > and functions.
Good point; reducing 'static' to just member variables and functions would be a positive move. imho, the word is just way too overloaded in current usage. As for the candidate words, my preference is still 'meta'. Justin Johansson