在确保翻译单元之间的可用性时是否弃用静态？
Is static deprecated when ensuring availability between translation units?
来自以下Whosebug answer，用户说：
It means that the variable is local to a translation unit (simply put,
to a single source file), and cannot be accessed from outside it. This
use of static is in fact deprecated in the current C++ Standard -
instead you are supposed to use anonymous namespaces:
static int x = 0;
should be:
namespace {
int x = 0;
}
我不同意匿名命名空间是首选方法，
但是现在真的不推荐使用 static 了吗？
标准哪里这么说的？
不，目前尚未弃用。它曾一度出现，但由于 C 语言的可比性问题而被逆转。在 1999 年之前的某个时候它被弃用了，这导致 defect report 174 说：
The decision to deprecate global static should be reversed.
- We cannot deprecate static because it is an important part of C and to abandon it would make C++ unnecessarily incompatible with C.
- Because templates may be instantiated on members of unnamed namespaces, some compilation systems may place such symbols in the
global linker space, which could place a significant burden on the
linker. Without static, programmers have no mechanism to avoid the
burden.
这导致 defect report 223 其中 弃用 的含义修改自：
deprecated is defined as: Normative for the current edition of the Standard, but not guaranteed to be part of the Standard in future revisions.
有人指出，这意味着未来的标准将只支持未弃用的功能：
However, this definition would appear to say that any non-deprecated feature is "guaranteed to be part of the Standard in future revisions." It's not clear that that implication was intended, so this definition may need to be amended.
并将弃用的含义更改为：
These are deprecated features, where deprecated is defined as: Normative for the current edition of the Standard, but having been identified as a candidate for removal from future revisions.
后来，由于 defect report 1012:
的 C 兼容性问题，该功能不再被弃用
Although 7.3.1.1 [namespace.unnamed] states that the use of the static keyword for declaring variables in namespace scope is deprecated because the unnamed namespace provides a superior alternative, it is unlikely that the feature will be removed at any point in the foreseeable future, especially in light of C compatibility concerns. The Committee should consider removing the deprecation.
来自以下Whosebug answer，用户说：
It means that the variable is local to a translation unit (simply put, to a single source file), and cannot be accessed from outside it. This use of static is in fact deprecated in the current C++ Standard - instead you are supposed to use anonymous namespaces:
static int x = 0;should be:
namespace { int x = 0; }
我不同意匿名命名空间是首选方法，
但是现在真的不推荐使用 static 了吗？
标准哪里这么说的？
不，目前尚未弃用。它曾一度出现，但由于 C 语言的可比性问题而被逆转。在 1999 年之前的某个时候它被弃用了，这导致 defect report 174 说：
The decision to deprecate global static should be reversed.
- We cannot deprecate static because it is an important part of C and to abandon it would make C++ unnecessarily incompatible with C.
- Because templates may be instantiated on members of unnamed namespaces, some compilation systems may place such symbols in the global linker space, which could place a significant burden on the linker. Without static, programmers have no mechanism to avoid the burden.
这导致 defect report 223 其中 弃用 的含义修改自：
deprecated is defined as: Normative for the current edition of the Standard, but not guaranteed to be part of the Standard in future revisions.
有人指出，这意味着未来的标准将只支持未弃用的功能：
However, this definition would appear to say that any non-deprecated feature is "guaranteed to be part of the Standard in future revisions." It's not clear that that implication was intended, so this definition may need to be amended.
并将弃用的含义更改为：
These are deprecated features, where deprecated is defined as: Normative for the current edition of the Standard, but having been identified as a candidate for removal from future revisions.
后来，由于 defect report 1012:
的 C 兼容性问题，该功能不再被弃用Although 7.3.1.1 [namespace.unnamed] states that the use of the static keyword for declaring variables in namespace scope is deprecated because the unnamed namespace provides a superior alternative, it is unlikely that the feature will be removed at any point in the foreseeable future, especially in light of C compatibility concerns. The Committee should consider removing the deprecation.