Quick suggestion: since constructors and destructors have such simple,
elegant syntax -- this() and ~this() -- why should static [de]constructors
be treated any differently?

    static this()   and   static ~this()

seem much better suited, and much purtier, IMHO.

 - Brent

Yes, you're right, it does look better.

Brent Schartung wrote in message <9lk86b$2jg9$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>Quick suggestion: since constructors and destructors have such simple,
>elegant syntax -- this() and ~this() -- why should static [de]constructors
>be treated any differently?
>
>    static this()   and   static ~this()
>
>seem much better suited, and much purtier, IMHO.
>
> - Brent
>
>