[chuck-users] Static bug

[Kassen]

Hans;

> That is my worry, too: lack of intuition. It invites errors.


I agree. The current behaviour is predictable, it could be called "expected"
but I don't feel it's intuitive and I agree that it invites error. It's
currently on the bugs page though it should probably be on a "open for
debate and better suggestions" page instead.

I feel there is a issue here but I'm not sure I have a alternative. We could
have -for example- have a parser warning at this. We could also simply have
attempts at setting values at definitions of static members result in a
error or we could make a exception and set the value at defining the class
itself. Then again; what if it's not a int being set as in;

3 => static int foo;

 but a function-call returning a int? This;

my_fun() => static int bar;

might have side effects that could be quit far-ranging.

I think that if it were my call I'd suggest leaving this be and dealing with
it once we get 'round to constructors. It does have uses as it is; for one
thing it can tell us whether this static member is a member of a class that
has a instance at all, in convenient -if hackish- shorthand. Classes and
instantiation have far worse issues than this, though indeed this particular
behaviour could stand documentation.

Yours,
Kas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20091125/fbda18d0/attachment.html>