static this sucks, we should deprecate it

[Frank Benoit]

Ary Borenszweig schrieb:
> 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.

If that error would be generated, there would be no other way to prevent
you from accessing another module which is not yet initialized (static
this not yet run).