static this sucks, we should deprecate it

[Unknown W. Brackets]

Actually, I didn't put that much thought into it.  I see what you're 
saying.  If you leave them off, it has to behave as now (otherwise it 
would break backwards compatibility.)

-[Unknown]

grauzone wrote:
>> static this as OP said not so good. Why would you need to specify no 
>> dependencies? The way it works now is not ambiguous and wouldn't 
>> conflict with the dependencies syntax.
> 
> Because if you really have no dependency, you had to specify a dummy 
> module.
> 
> As I understand, Mr. Bracket's proposal works as this:
> 
> static this {} //full dependencies (all import statements)
> static this : a, b {} //only dependent from module a and b
> 
> And I'd add
> 
> static this : void {} //no dependencies at all