auto storage class - infer or RAII?

[Tomas Lindquist Olsen]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> Tomas Lindquist Olsen wrote:
>>>> Sean Kelly wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is definitely a bit weird. I would like to see all combinations 
>>>> of these fail. they dont make any sense together. all provide ATI if 
>>>> present. the only problem I can see is if you want to put a constant 
>>>> inside a static block. but maybe that is handled differently?
>>>>
>>>> IMHO this would make sense:
>>>>
>>>> Invalid:
>>>> ---------
>>>> static const x = 5;
>>>
>>> What's wrong with static and const together?
>>> One says this is actually store with globals not on the stack, the 
>>> other says the value isn't going to change.  Nothing inconsistent 
>>> about having those two together.
>> Does it really make sense to have the programmer decide this 
>> distinction? A global const will definitely have static storage. But 
>> why  not let the compiler decide?
>>
>> I just don't see where having this choice is useful!
> 
> In a function?
> In a class?
> 
> --bb

a static in a class is well defined. so is a const. for me 'static 
const' reads as having the 'static' redundant. a 'const' in D is by 
definition static. It cannot change, as only a compile-time constant 
will qualify, and thus will be the same to all classes of whatever reads it.
a function 'const' is very much the same. I fail to come up with a 
scenario where choosing the storage model for a constant makes any sense!
Can you post an example of why we need 'static const' ?