Static function at module level

[Phil Lavoie via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Monday, 18 August 2014 at 17:42:37 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 06:46:02 +0000
> bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn 
> <digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com>
> wrote:
>
>> accepting useless code confuses newbies
> i think that i'm not really a newbie now ;-), but i'm still 
> used to
> declare various private module functions and variables as 
> 'static'.
> yes, sometimes this confuses me (as to "do i need to make this 
> sta...
> ah, scrap that, it's D!"), but sometimes this is handy. why? 
> i'm still
> have to use C sometimes, and i'm writing 'static' 
> automatically. having
> compiler to accept it for anything high-level saves me one 
> regexp
> search-and-replace. ;-)

I don't think he meant you personally. Well, I hope not. I was 
confused by it too and I don't consider myself a D newbie.

I get that it is convenient for you. I have done a lot of C 
myself. However, convenience loses to misleading in my book.

Consider that in the future, for example, "static interface 
Toto{}" means something different than "interface Toto{}". I am 
not debating whether or not that would ever happen or what would 
even be the meaning of a static interface (even though I have an 
idea), the point is more like this: every compiler version will 
accept both versions of said interface, but some of those 
compiler will interpret it differently. Now that's a problem.

Philz