"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructiona...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.82.1272389432.3522.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:12:13PM -0400, bearophile wrote: >> The situation of the 'static' keyword is silly. > > Static isn't bad - it always means the same thing: "this won't change > across instances." > > class A { > static void f(); // f does the same across all instances of A > static int a; // same variable across all instances of A > } > > void f() { > static int a; // same across all calls of function f() > } > > The compile time ones also apply in the same way, if you think of the > program as being like a class, and instances of the program at runtime as > being objects. > > static if(a) { } // doesn't change across instances of the program > static assert(a) // same as static if > > > The only place I can think of where it doesn't fit perfectly is static > import, and even then it fits loosely: calls to that module will always > be the same (fully qualified). > > > I'm ok with keyword reuse when it all fits under one main definition, > which > static does. If you are giving multiple definitions to one word though, > that's > less ideal. > > enum works fine by me too by the way: it is any compile time value, which > also applies to manifest constants. >
pure: The same input always results in the same output, and with no side effects. A variable can be thought of as a zero-argument function (particularly true if you think of properties as being variables), and likewise, a manifest constant can be thought of as a zero-argument pure function (although, so can immutable vars, for that matter). ------------------------------- Not sent from an iPhone.
