static this sucks, we should deprecate it

Unknown W. Brackets unknown at
Thu May 28 21:34:51 PDT 2009

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.)


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

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list