== Quote from Stewart Gordon (smjg_1...@yahoo.com)'s article > On 23/02/2011 18:07, Ary Manzana wrote: > > On 2/22/11 10:36 AM, Simen Kjaeraas wrote: > >> %u Wrote: > >>> Well, the trouble is, pretty much all of these are invalid attributes: > >> > >>> - static obviously makes no sense > >> > >> And here is where you're wrong. You have defined a static destructor, which is called > >> with module destructor as the program goes out of scope, rather than when your struct or > >> class is destroyed. > > > > This is why attributes that make no sense must be an error: you don't know > > if an attribute > > you put is being ignored by the compiler or not (like what has just happened here). > Uh, that's a total non sequitur. The point Simen is making is that static _does_ make > sense here. > Stewart.
But if the compiler always rejected the nonsensical ones it would be clear that the ones that are not rejected have some meaning. The ambiguity he is talking about (I think) is between the two ideas "the compiler accepted this but its meaningless" and "the compiler accepted this so it *must* be meaningful". If you can't be sure the second is true, then you don't realize there is a bug, e.g. if you did not intend the destructor to be a class/module destructor. Kevin
