webrev for type-annotations, repeating type-annotations test

[Jonathan Gibbons]

On 01/09/2013 03:27 PM, Steve Sides wrote:
>
> static fields are probably not necessary.  I was just following other 
> test helpers. :) 

Yeah, precedents are good, except when they're not.  In this case, 
mutable static fields are the spawn of the devil. Or something like that 
;-)  If you see other helpers making excessive use of "static",  please 
point it out.

-- Jon