Re: static virtual is a keyhole?

At 02:36 PM 10/7/2003, Balog Pal wrote:
>> 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?

Probably not.  To date, I have resisted the urge to classify missing features as keyholes.  The kinds of keyholes I'm interested in are gratuitous restrictions on features that are offered.  For example, if some programming language said you can't have an array with more than 100 elements, I'd call that a keyhole.  But if the language failed to offer arrays, the lack of arrays would not be a keyhole.

Scott