static this sucks, we should deprecate it

[Ary Borenszweig]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2009 11:32:19 -0400, Ary Borenszweig 
> <ary at esperanto.org.ar> wrote:
> 
>> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
>>> Probably a silly idea, but what about (or similar):
>>>  static this: mod.name, mod.name2, mod.name3
>>> {
>>> }
>>>  For a dependency list.  I may be wrong, but afaik the main problems 
>>> stem from either wrong order or co-dependence (which needs to be 
>>> solved by the programmer.)
>>>  At least with this, you could ask the compiler for an order, 
>>> potentially.  If the other modules had no static this, it could 
>>> ignore it, allowing future proofing.
>>>  But, maybe that's an ugly hack.
>>>  -[Unknown]
>>>   davidl wrote:
>>>> Why on earth we still let the tumor grow?
>>>> I would love to specify the order by myself not by the arbitrary order
>>>> generated by the compiler.
>>>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Can someone explain me what is exactly the problems with static this? 
>> Something like a small example that shows the problem, so I can at 
>> least think of a solution (because I don't know the problem).
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Ary
> 
> 
> Something like:
> 
> file1.d:
> 
> import file2.d;
> 
> static this()
> {
> }
> 
> file2.d:
> 
> import file1.d;
> 
> static this()
> {
> }
> 
> fails to compile due to the perceived circular dependency, even though 
> none exists.

Thanks, yes, it fails to run. But why? What could happen if that error 
wasn't issued? I'm looking for an example where something wrong could 
happen.