Uh... destructors?

[Stewart Gordon]

On 23/02/2011 18:07, Ary Manzana wrote:
> On 2/22/11 10:36 AM, Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
>> %u Wrote:
>>> Well, the trouble is, pretty much all of these are invalid attributes:
>>
>>> - static obviously makes no sense
>>
>> And here is where you're wrong. You have defined a static destructor, which is called
>> with module destructor as the program goes out of scope, rather than when your struct or
>> class is destroyed.
>
> This is why attributes that make no sense must be an error: you don't know if an attribute
> you put is being ignored by the compiler or not (like what has just happened here).

Uh, that's a total non sequitur.  The point Simen is making is that static _does_ make 
sense here.

Stewart.