   static members and visibility keywords
  Hi, here's some AngelScript beginner's questions, I suppose:1.) Does AngelScript support static member variables and methods? If yes, what's the syntax? C++ syntax doesn't seem to satisfy the compiler...2.) How about the keywords 'public', 'private', 'protected': They don't seem to be supported. Is there another way to hide members and implementation?May be there's a document that describes the AngelScript syntax a little more detailed than the 'Application Writer's Manual'? If yes, could someone point me to that, please?Thanks very much!   
  1) No, AngelScript does not yet support static member variables and methods. You'll have to declare them as global variables/functions. Support for this is planned though.2) Again no. Currently there is no support for these. And, considering that AngelScript is a scripting library and not a full blown programming language adding support for them has a very low priority at the moment.Unfortunately there is no other manual that describes the AngelScript syntax. However, I'd very much like to hear your suggestions on what I need to do to improve it further.Regards,Andreas   ;  Hi,thanks very much for the quick reply!With respect to the manual I would recommend two things:1.) Separate out the description of the scripting language itself. Most of the 'end users' are not interested in how AngelScript is incorporated into an application which is (and has to be!) the bulk of information in an Application Writer's Manual.When trying to find what they need in this manual, they might get quite confused or at least assume that the information they are looking for just isn't there.2.) Include a list of the core differences between C++ and AngelScript into the description of the language. It wouldn't have to be very detailed nor would it have to be complete. Examples could be the answers to my questions you just posted.Finally, thanks again for AngelScript it's a great tool and the documentation is not bad at all. I have to apologize if I caused this impression, that was not the intent!;  Don't worry, I didn't feel that you were saying the documentation was bad. However I do know that it can be improved quite a bit, that's why I'm always welcoming suggestions for improvements.1) I'm not so sure about the value of separating the script reference from the rest of the manual. Each application should ideally have their own script writer's manual, especially since the API is going to be different for each application. Of course, the script language is still the same (except for customizations made by the application), so the application developers are welcome to copy the relevant parts of the script reference into their own manual.2) I had already planned to add more comparisons between AngelScript and C++ already. That you also suggest it just reinforces the value of that.Regards,Andreas   