• John C (9/9) Mar 12 2005 Purely by accident, I discovered that the compiler doesn't issue an erro...
• Walter (6/13) Mar 12 2005 Because of the way attributes are parsed, ones that make no sense are ju...
• Craig Black (2/6) Mar 14 2005 Cool.

"John C" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> writes:

Purely by accident, I discovered that the compiler doesn't issue an error 
when the static attribute is used in a class declaration, like so:

    public static class MyClass {
    }

It doesn't appear to be documented, so does it have a purpose? I initially 
thought it might be a shorthand for final and abstract (classes that can 
neither be instantiated nor derived from), but no.

Anyway, just curious.

John. 

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"John C" <johnch_atms hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d102ra$skm$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Purely by accident, I discovered that the compiler doesn't issue an error
 when the static attribute is used in a class declaration, like so:

     public static class MyClass {
     }

 It doesn't appear to be documented, so does it have a purpose? I initially
 thought it might be a shorthand for final and abstract (classes that can
 neither be instantiated nor derived from), but no.

Because of the way attributes are parsed, ones that make no sense are just
ignored. This is for things like:

    static:

    // everything that follows is static

"Craig Black" <cblack ara.com> writes:

 Because of the way attributes are parsed, ones that make no sense are just
 ignored. This is for things like:

    static:

    // everything that follows is static

Cool.

-Craig