• Max Samuha (14/14) Oct 06 2006 Two questions to the community:
• Chris Miller (4/18) Oct 06 2006 I also asked about this before and it's not a bug, "static" and "this" a...
• Derek Parnell (7/12) Oct 06 2006 But each module can have it own constructor method and they can't all be
• Max Samuha (7/29) Oct 06 2006 Then the compiler should definitely disallow 'this' in a static block
• Chris Miller (3/14) Oct 06 2006 There would only be one module-level 'this', the rest would be 'static
• Hasan Aljudy (7/26) Oct 06 2006 As Chris already said, static is not really an attribute, it's just
• Max Samuha (5/31) Oct 06 2006 Ok, that's clear. Anyway, the compiler should issue an error if 'this'
• Max Samuha (20/56) Oct 06 2006 And, IMO, this one shouldn't compile without complaint, either:
• Ary Manzana (7/66) Oct 06 2006 In some recent post I told it should be great if the compiler could tell...
• Chris Nicholson-Sauls (9/76) Oct 06 2006 Would cause a problem with the continuous attribute syntax...
• Max Samuha (12/88) Oct 07 2006 Error, warning, anything to let me know about my static constructor
• Hasan Aljudy (3/13) Oct 07 2006 My wild guess would be that the "static" significantly changes the
• Ivan Senji (3/86) Oct 07 2006 Who knows what the explanation might be. But it helps to look at static

Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua> writes:

Two questions to the community:

1. The following is obviously a bug?

class Test
{
	static
	{
		this(){}; // defined not as static constructor but as
instance constructor

		... more static members here		
	}
}

2. Why module constructor must be attributed with static? All module
level methods are already static so the attribute seems to be
redundant. Make it optional?

"Chris Miller" <chris dprogramming.com> writes:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:01:09 -0400, Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua> wrote:

 Two questions to the community:

 1. The following is obviously a bug?

 class Test
 {
 	static
 	{
 		this(){}; // defined not as static constructor but as
 instance constructor

 		... more static members here		
 	}
 }

I also asked about this before and it's not a bug, "static" and "this" are  
supposed to be together, like static assert.

 2. Why module constructor must be attributed with static? All module
 level methods are already static so the attribute seems to be
 redundant. Make it optional?

I guess you're right; my suggestion was to rename main() to this()  :)

Derek Parnell <derek psyc.ward> writes:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:40:46 -0400, Chris Miller wrote:

 2. Why module constructor must be attributed with static? All module
 level methods are already static so the attribute seems to be
 redundant. Make it optional?

 
 I guess you're right; my suggestion was to rename main() to this()  :)

But each module can have it own constructor method and they can't all be
'main'.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocrity!"

Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua> writes:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:40:46 -0400, "Chris Miller"
<chris dprogramming.com> wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:01:09 -0400, Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua> wrote:

 Two questions to the community:

 1. The following is obviously a bug?

 class Test
 {
 	static
 	{
 		this(){}; // defined not as static constructor but as
 instance constructor

 		... more static members here		
 	}
 }

I also asked about this before and it's not a bug, "static" and "this" are  
supposed to be together, like static assert.

Then the compiler should definitely disallow 'this' in a static block
giving a good compile time error message?

 2. Why module constructor must be attributed with static? All module
 level methods are already static so the attribute seems to be
 redundant. Make it optional?

I guess you're right; my suggestion was to rename main() to this()  :)

There may be 'this' in different modules. How the entry point would be
determined then? Or please give me a link to the thread where your
suggestion was discussed. 

"Chris Miller" <chris dprogramming.com> writes:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 07:30:18 -0400, Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua> wrote:

 Then the compiler should definitely disallow 'this' in a static block
 giving a good compile time error message?

 2. Why module constructor must be attributed with static? All module
 level methods are already static so the attribute seems to be
 redundant. Make it optional?

 I guess you're right; my suggestion was to rename main() to this()  :)

 There may be 'this' in different modules. How the entry point would be
 determined then? Or please give me a link to the thread where your
 suggestion was discussed.

There would only be one module-level 'this', the rest would be 'static  
this'.

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

Max Samuha wrote:
 Two questions to the community:
 
 1. The following is obviously a bug?
 
 class Test
 {
 	static
 	{
 		this(){}; // defined not as static constructor but as
 instance constructor
 
 		... more static members here		
 	}
 }

As Chris already said, static is not really an attribute, it's just 
"static this".

 
 2. Why module constructor must be attributed with static? All module
 level methods are already static so the attribute seems to be
 redundant. Make it optional?
 

I guess the reason is to be consistent. "static this" refers to a static 
constructor, i.e. a constructor that will be called at the beginning of 
the program's start.
Module constructors are static constructors, so "static this" is used.

Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua> writes:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:53:08 -0600, Hasan Aljudy
<hasan.aljudy gmail.com> wrote:

Max Samuha wrote:
 Two questions to the community:
 
 1. The following is obviously a bug?
 
 class Test
 {
 	static
 	{
 		this(){}; // defined not as static constructor but as
 instance constructor
 
 		... more static members here		
 	}
 }

As Chris already said, static is not really an attribute, it's just 
"static this".

 
 2. Why module constructor must be attributed with static? All module
 level methods are already static so the attribute seems to be
 redundant. Make it optional?
 

I guess the reason is to be consistent. "static this" refers to a static 
constructor, i.e. a constructor that will be called at the beginning of 
the program's start.
Module constructors are static constructors, so "static this" is used.

Ok, that's clear. Anyway, the compiler should issue an error if 'this'
is used in static block. If not, it will be be confusing for newcomers
who will be unlucky enough to use it the way I did.   

Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua> writes:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:24:35 +0300, Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua>
wrote:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:53:08 -0600, Hasan Aljudy
<hasan.aljudy gmail.com> wrote:

Max Samuha wrote:
 Two questions to the community:
 
 1. The following is obviously a bug?
 
 class Test
 {
 	static
 	{
 		this(){}; // defined not as static constructor but as
 instance constructor
 
 		... more static members here		
 	}
 }

As Chris already said, static is not really an attribute, it's just 
"static this".

 
 2. Why module constructor must be attributed with static? All module
 level methods are already static so the attribute seems to be
 redundant. Make it optional?
 

I guess the reason is to be consistent. "static this" refers to a static 
constructor, i.e. a constructor that will be called at the beginning of 
the program's start.
Module constructors are static constructors, so "static this" is used.

Ok, that's clear. Anyway, the compiler should issue an error if 'this'
is used in static block. If not, it will be be confusing for newcomers
who will be unlucky enough to use it the way I did.

And, IMO, this one shouldn't compile without complaint, either: 

class Test
{
	static
	{
		static this()
		{
			writefln("In static ctor");
		}
	}

	static static void foo()
	{
	}
}

void main()
{
}

How do you think?

Ary Manzana <asterite gmail.com> writes:

Max Samuha wrote:
 On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:24:35 +0300, Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua>
 wrote:
 
 On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:53:08 -0600, Hasan Aljudy
 <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> wrote:

 Max Samuha wrote:
 Two questions to the community:

 1. The following is obviously a bug?

 class Test
 {
 	static
 	{
 		this(){}; // defined not as static constructor but as
 instance constructor

 		... more static members here		
 	}
 }

 As Chris already said, static is not really an attribute, it's just 
 "static this".

 2. Why module constructor must be attributed with static? All module
 level methods are already static so the attribute seems to be
 redundant. Make it optional?

 I guess the reason is to be consistent. "static this" refers to a static 
 constructor, i.e. a constructor that will be called at the beginning of 
 the program's start.
 Module constructors are static constructors, so "static this" is used.

 Ok, that's clear. Anyway, the compiler should issue an error if 'this'
 is used in static block. If not, it will be be confusing for newcomers
 who will be unlucky enough to use it the way I did.

 
 And, IMO, this one shouldn't compile without complaint, either: 
 
 class Test
 {
 	static
 	{
 		static this()
 		{
 			writefln("In static ctor");
 		}
 	}
 
 	static static void foo()
 	{
 	}
 }
 
 void main()
 {
 }
 
 How do you think?

In some recent post I told it should be great if the compiler could tell 
if a modifier is redundant. I've seen the parser code and it seems 
pretty easy to implement.

Try with any modifier (abstract abstract, public private, even abstract 
final) and you'll get no error (of course, you won't be able to 
instantiate that class, the compiler thinks it's abstract).

Chris Nicholson-Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> writes:

Max Samuha wrote:
 On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:24:35 +0300, Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua>
 wrote:
 
 
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:53:08 -0600, Hasan Aljudy
<hasan.aljudy gmail.com> wrote:


Max Samuha wrote:

Two questions to the community:

1. The following is obviously a bug?

class Test
{
	static
	{
		this(){}; // defined not as static constructor but as
instance constructor

		... more static members here		
	}
}

As Chris already said, static is not really an attribute, it's just 
"static this".


2. Why module constructor must be attributed with static? All module
level methods are already static so the attribute seems to be
redundant. Make it optional?

I guess the reason is to be consistent. "static this" refers to a static 
constructor, i.e. a constructor that will be called at the beginning of 
the program's start.
Module constructors are static constructors, so "static this" is used.

Ok, that's clear. Anyway, the compiler should issue an error if 'this'
is used in static block. If not, it will be be confusing for newcomers
who will be unlucky enough to use it the way I did.

 
 
 And, IMO, this one shouldn't compile without complaint, either: 
 
 class Test
 {
 	static
 	{
 		static this()
 		{
 			writefln("In static ctor");
 		}
 	}
 
 	static static void foo()
 	{
 	}
 }
 
 void main()
 {
 }
 
 How do you think?

Would cause a problem with the continuous attribute syntax...







I'd say make it a non-blocking warning, rather than an error.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua> writes:

On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:05:07 -0500, Chris Nicholson-Sauls
<ibisbasenji gmail.com> wrote:

Max Samuha wrote:
 On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:24:35 +0300, Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua>
 wrote:
 
 
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:53:08 -0600, Hasan Aljudy
<hasan.aljudy gmail.com> wrote:


Max Samuha wrote:

Two questions to the community:

1. The following is obviously a bug?

class Test
{
	static
	{
		this(){}; // defined not as static constructor but as
instance constructor

		... more static members here		
	}
}

As Chris already said, static is not really an attribute, it's just 
"static this".


2. Why module constructor must be attributed with static? All module
level methods are already static so the attribute seems to be
redundant. Make it optional?

I guess the reason is to be consistent. "static this" refers to a static 
constructor, i.e. a constructor that will be called at the beginning of 
the program's start.
Module constructors are static constructors, so "static this" is used.

Ok, that's clear. Anyway, the compiler should issue an error if 'this'
is used in static block. If not, it will be be confusing for newcomers
who will be unlucky enough to use it the way I did.

 
 
 And, IMO, this one shouldn't compile without complaint, either: 
 
 class Test
 {
 	static
 	{
 		static this()
 		{
 			writefln("In static ctor");
 		}
 	}
 
 	static static void foo()
 	{
 	}
 }
 
 void main()
 {
 }
 
 How do you think?

Would cause a problem with the continuous attribute syntax...







I'd say make it a non-blocking warning, rather than an error.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

Error, warning, anything to let me know about my static constructor
being compiled as instance one.

Btw, i still can't see the reason why D doesn't treat 'static' as an
attribute of 'this' like other static methods? Could anybody explain?

class Test
{
static:
  this(){}; // make it static ctor, not instance.  it's confusing!
  void foo();	 
}

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

Max Samuha wrote:
 
 Btw, i still can't see the reason why D doesn't treat 'static' as an
 attribute of 'this' like other static methods? Could anybody explain?
 
 class Test
 {
 static:
   this(){}; // make it static ctor, not instance.  it's confusing!
   void foo();	 
 }

My wild guess would be that the "static" significantly changes the 
functionality of "this()" so it's much more than just an attribute.

Ivan Senji <ivan.senji_REMOVE_ _THIS__gmail.com> writes:

Max Samuha wrote:
 On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:05:07 -0500, Chris Nicholson-Sauls
 <ibisbasenji gmail.com> wrote:
 
 Max Samuha wrote:
 On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:24:35 +0300, Max Samuha <maxter i.com.ua>
 wrote:


 On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 06:53:08 -0600, Hasan Aljudy
 <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> wrote:


 Max Samuha wrote:

 Two questions to the community:

 1. The following is obviously a bug?

 class Test
 {
 	static
 	{
 		this(){}; // defined not as static constructor but as
 instance constructor

 		... more static members here		
 	}
 }

 As Chris already said, static is not really an attribute, it's just 
 "static this".


 2. Why module constructor must be attributed with static? All module
 level methods are already static so the attribute seems to be
 redundant. Make it optional?

 I guess the reason is to be consistent. "static this" refers to a static 
 constructor, i.e. a constructor that will be called at the beginning of 
 the program's start.
 Module constructors are static constructors, so "static this" is used.

 Ok, that's clear. Anyway, the compiler should issue an error if 'this'
 is used in static block. If not, it will be be confusing for newcomers
 who will be unlucky enough to use it the way I did.

 And, IMO, this one shouldn't compile without complaint, either: 

 class Test
 {
 	static
 	{
 		static this()
 		{
 			writefln("In static ctor");
 		}
 	}

 	static static void foo()
 	{
 	}
 }

 void main()
 {
 }

 How do you think?

 Would cause a problem with the continuous attribute syntax...







 I'd say make it a non-blocking warning, rather than an error.

 -- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

 
 Error, warning, anything to let me know about my static constructor
 being compiled as instance one.
 
 Btw, i still can't see the reason why D doesn't treat 'static' as an
 attribute of 'this' like other static methods? Could anybody explain?

Who knows what the explanation might be. But it helps to look at static 
this as staticthis.