On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Ben Kloosterman <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> let me start static members of interfaces have never been discussed >> because they make no sense because the interface type is never used. >> - There is a this method which is unused >> - There are no constraints .Its the constraints or type relations that >> give it meaning. >> > > Right. Though adding static methods hardly seems like rocket science. They > actually have nothing to do with the interface at all. In a simple view > they are merely global procedures that live in the *namespace* defined by > the Interface. In that view it's merely a human convenience to allow static > methods in an interface. > Correct. They dont logically belong there and they dont even need to be in the namespace..( though they should) . > > But if interfaces are parametric, and can have distinct implementations at > different types, then of course the static methods can also have distinct > implementations at different types. In that case the static methods act as > a form of constrained *ad hoc* overloading in exactly the way that type > class methods do. > > Yes and thats the real leap , generics were already getting constraints and interfaces could use them. Now as i asked on freenode just have to work out what an interface with both methods and static functions is ... Also should traits and interfaces have the same syntax and add a static modifier for functions . This could really help people from Java /C# . Ben Ben
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
