Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[DLearner via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 8 July 2016 at 19:43:39 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> On Friday, 8 July 2016 at 18:16:03 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> wrote:
>>
>> You may well be literally the only person on Earth who 
>> dislikes the use of "static" in "static if". -- Andrei
>
> You have to admit that static is used in a lot of different 
> places in D. It doesn't always mean something like compile-time 
> either. For instance, a static member function is not a compile 
> time member function. However, I doubt something like this is 
> going to change, so it doesn't really bother me.
>
> I liked the way that the Sparrow language (from the 
> presentation you posted a few weeks ago) did it. Instead of 
> static if, they use if[ct].

I think it is a serious mistake to use the same word for 
different concepts.

In the case of 'static', the problem is that it started out 
meaning 'as at, or pertaining to, compile time', and then got 
additional meanings.
Therefore, suggest we change the keyword 'static', as used for 
compile time, to 'ctime'.