Re: [RFC-DRAFT] New RFC draft "static class constructor"

As the RFC is still in draft status, I will stop for now answering any issues on the purpose of this RFC. I will now rewrite some things at the draft, and come back to the discussion in this threads after those changes I will focus on the following open issues I have identified during the last two days discussion here. I identified the follwing issues to clearify more: - "Magic" method vs. static block (as it is done by JAVA) - Naming of the method - Why the trigger should be like it is proposed by the RFC And I will focus again on the contra arguments during last days discussion and the pre-draft discussion some weeks ago. In my point of view all of those arguments I read so far can be summarized to the single argument: You should avoid static class state and for this a initialization method, because this is "poor" designed code and "crucial" things can be done with it. Please feel free to correct me, if I got anyone's argument against the RFC wrong! I hope I can finish the changes to the drafts during the weekend, afterwards I will answer your comments just by linking to the specific RFC-Section. Thanks and regards -- DerOetzi