title: Why an unnamed namespace is a "superior" alternative to static?
body: <p>The section $7.3.1.1/2 from the C++ Standard reads:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>The use of the static keyword is
    deprecated when declaring objects in a
    namespace scope; the unnamed-namespace
    provides <strong>a superior alternative.</strong></p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>I don't understand why an unnamed namespace is considered a superior alternative? What is the rationale? I've known for a long time as to what the standard says, but I've never seriously thought about it, even when I was replying to this question: <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4422507/superiority-of-unnamed-namespace-over-static">Superiority of unnamed namespace over static?</a></p>
  
  <p>Is it considered superior because it can be applied to user-defined types as well, as I described in my <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4422507/superiority-of-unnamed-namespace-over-static/4422554#4422554">answer</a>? Or is there some other reason as well, that I'm unaware of? I'm asking this, particularly because that is my reasoning in my answer, while the standard might have something else in mind.</p>