On 8/30/11 7:40 AM, Marco Leise wrote:
Am 29.08.2011, 22:24 Uhr, schrieb Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>:
On Monday, August 29, 2011 12:53 Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
On 29-08-2011 19:47, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday, August 29, 2011 07:44 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> My opinion is that static methods should *not* be callable from an
>> instance, you should need typeof(instance).staticMethod. The current
>> allowance is misleading.
>
> Yeah. I don't know why it's allowed. I think that C++, Java, and C#
all
> allow it too, but I've always thought that it was a bad idea in all of
> those languages. I don't see a problem being able to call a static
> method inside of its class without giving the class name (if you had
> both a static and non- static method with the same name, then you
could
> simply require that either the type name or this be use), but it
strikes
> me as very lax to allow a static method to be called with an instance.
> That's definitely one of the little things that I'd love to see
changed.
> It's not the end of the world if it isn't, but I see no cons to
changing
> it other than the possibility of breaking code (which was arguably bad
> code to begin with).
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
C# doesn't and I'm fairly sure Java doesn't either (though I'm certainly
no Java expert). Overall, I think this entire "call static method on
instance" deal comes from C++.
I haven't used C# much, so I'm not entirely surprised if I'm wrong
about that,
but I'm 99.99% sure that Java allows it. I definitely remember being
irritated
by it in Java.
- Jonathan M Davis
Java allows it, but gives a warning and auto-correct option to use the
class reference instead, in Eclipse. That probably means that there is
no justifiable use-case for it.
In Java that is, which has very weak generic programming. Generalizing
that to D would be at best speculative.
Andrei
