Simen kjaeraas: > The problem with such a solution is that the compiler needs to evaluate > the 'in' clause differently from all other code, as code further down in > the 'in' clause could use parameters in a way that would be illegal at > compile-time. Hence the new keyword
I see. > or, for giggles, why not 'static in'? "static in" sounds acceptable :-) Bye, bearophile
