• Brent Schartung (6/6) Aug 17 2001 Quick suggestion: since constructors and destructors have such simple,
• Walter (2/8) Aug 17 2001

"Brent Schartung" <bschartung home.com> writes:

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

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

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