On Monday, 18 August 2014 at 17:42:37 UTC, ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 06:46:02 +0000
> bearophile via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com>
> wrote:
>
>> accepting useless code confuses newbies
> i think that i'm not really a newbie now ;-), but i'm still used to
> declare various private module functions and variables as 'static'.
> yes, sometimes this confuses me (as to "do i need to make this sta...
> ah, scrap that, it's D!"), but sometimes this is handy. why? i'm still
> have to use C sometimes, and i'm writing 'static' automatically. having
> compiler to accept it for anything high-level saves me one regexp
> search-and-replace. ;-)

I don't think he meant you personally. Well, I hope not. I was confused by it too and I don't consider myself a D newbie.

I get that it is convenient for you. I have done a lot of C myself. However, convenience loses to misleading in my book.

Consider that in the future, for example, "static interface Toto{}" means something different than "interface Toto{}". I am not debating whether or not that would ever happen or what would even be the meaning of a static interface (even though I have an idea), the point is more like this: every compiler version will accept both versions of said interface, but some of those compiler will interpret it differently. Now that's a problem.

Philz

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 17:55:01 +0000
Phil Lavoie via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com>
wrote:

> I don't think he meant you personally.
ah, nothing personal, i just described my use case, maybe using some vague wording. i AM a newbie in D, there is nothing insulting in being newbie. ;-)

> the point is more like this: every compiler version will accept both versions of said interface, but some of those compiler will interpret it differently. Now that's a problem.
hm. to be honest, i just don't want to fix almost all my code removing spurious 'static's here and there. ;-)