Re: static virtual is a keyhole?

> I'm sorry I've been so slow to respond to postings to this mailing list,
> but I was traveling and now I'm trying to dig out, plus I have to focus my
> energies on C++ these days.  But please keep the discussions going, I'm
> definitely interested and reading!

Welcome back. Before I appeal on virtual statics let me ask a question.

In C++ we have cv qualifiers, const, volatile, both, neither. The current
language allows all the combinations.

Suppose everything were as is, just const-volatile were not allowed. Would
you call that a (gratuitous) keyhole applying your definition?

Paul