Binding static members - a dumb newbie question

[uwu-crj]

I notice the ...static counterparts for the various m.def...() methods. But why do they need to exist?

If, for example, nanobind added an overload to def_rw() for static members instead of defining def_rw_static():

template<typename C, typename D, typename ...Extra>
class_ &def_rw(const char *name, D C::* p, const Extra&... extra);
template<typename D, typename ...Extra>
class_ &def_rw(const char *name, D *p, const Extra&... extra);

...it would Just Work and the binding would not need to be updated if whether or not a member was static later changed?

[wjakob]

Are you sure? It might work for an instance of your type, but I would guess that you then can't access it directly on the class itself. (Or if you set something there, it doesn't correctly propagate to the C++-managed value).