You already have an instance, and all arguments focusing on interfaces requiring a class instance is scary, but no surprise considering there is so much love for OO and GAMMA rays. Why an interface would require a class instance sounds like another version of WCF needs to be written.
In CLI a static class is an implicit seal first and foremost, and while it does not look like an abstract type (and former being in effect) it has similar usage behaviour (so a combo of two, see the spec). If things stand on shaky ground as they did before, there are same reasons why you cannot make it a marshallable object, it cannot derive from anything but bloat .NET 'object'. It pseudo probably belongs to that Module space, and from there you have per AppDomain specifics involved. Why decorate the class, your members already are, make a factory facade, it should be more flexible too. > guess the thing I'm fuzzy on is the concept of > the *metaclass* (in the smalltalk (and ruby?)) sense. That's the > direction I was hoping the discussion would go in. All bloat (and proprietary), ruby, smalltalk and CLR (in decending order), only MPL pushes the boundary forward but with syntax price attached to it. =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
