Zeev Suraski wrote:
I actually don't recall there was consensus on even adding this feature in the Paris meeting, let alone how to name it.
To quote the meeting results as linked in Mike's original post:
1. We re-use the "static::" keyword to do runtime evaluation of statics.
2. Marcus prepares an implementation suggestion.
Atleast back then nobody who attended the meeting seemed to complain about this seemingly definitive decision noted in Dericks summary.
Also note the notes on the discussion itself:
"Discussion: Currently there is no way do "runtime evaluating" of static members so that we can call B::static2() from A::staticA() and this is a useful feature. In order to implement this we need a new keyword to allow for this. As we do not want to introduce yet another reserved word the re-use of "static" was suggested for this."
Again it does not seem like there was any complaints about the usefulness of the feature, yet both you and Dimitry attended the meeting. So have you guys changed your mind on the need for this? Was the summary incorrect?
It seems to me you are torpedoing a feature you agreed on as useful because if technical concerns about one possible implementation.
regards,
Lukas