On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:45:00 +0200, Johan SundstrXm (Achtung Liebe!) @ Pike (-) developers forum 10353@lyskom.lysator.liu.se wrote:
As I perceive it from other languages, 'static' means a really global (non object-oriented) memory location.
I think this sentence is the perfect example of why "static(global)" (assuming we end up with Mirar's suggested syntax for explicit storage location declarations) should have to be declared using the verbose syntax, rather than be the default behaviour of the static keyword.
Sorry if I play the "spoilsport", but do we really need this feature at all? We can always store global values in global variables. As I see it, the number of uses are reasonably few.
The Pike-Language is much too complex anyway, with 1001 possibilities to express the same thing. Perhaps it is just the influence of Niklaus Wirth here in Zurich ;-) ... I just have the feeling that it gets more and more difficult for me to grasp the full Pike language, which gets us closer to C++ with every little step.
Bernd
PS: I do not want to kill it off, all I want to do is to ask for the "Why" ... I had been envolved in the ECMA Eiffel standardization process and I could see too many "nice to have" features slip into the language. :-( So, having a jester asking why could clarify things ... ;-)