On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 3:22 PM Bilge <bi...@scriptfusion.com> wrote:
> On 08/07/2024 12:48, Alexandru Pătrănescu wrote: > > > If we support inheritance for static classes, we should allow static on > both interface and abstract classes. > > What do you mean by *allow static on [...] interface*? Are you saying you > also expect to see `static interface` support? (This is something I am > absolutely not considering at this time, without a very good argument in > favour of). > > > For completeness, if we think that the static keyword on a class-level entity means that it will allow only static members on that entity, all class-level entities should be able to be marked as "static".: Yes, it might not be really required, but I can see how it would help define a static interface that can only be implemented by a static class. Reading on : > A static class only permits extending a parent class that is also marked static. A non-static class cannot extend a static class. The wording is a bit confusing for me. But I understand that once a class is static, all the chain of inheritance should be made of static classes, going up or down (and I would also think we can add interfaces and traits.). If interfaces are not included, do we allow implementing an interface? If we allow implementing an interface, should that interface contain only static members? Same for traits. Alex
