Static function conflicts with Non-Static?!

[Namespace]

On Saturday, 2 June 2012 at 08:24:16 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday, June 02, 2012 10:14:51 Zhenya wrote:
>> I'm not sure, but it seems that this is a bug.
>
> It's not. If nothing else, it's perfectly legal to call a 
> static function with
> an instance. e.g.
>
> class C
> {
>     static void func() {}
> }
>
> auto c = new C;
> c.func();
>
> So, that creates an ambiguity if a static and non-static 
> function could have
> the same name. Now, it could just assume that the instance was 
> meant in this
> case, but it doesn't work that way. It's just illegal to 
> overload a static
> function with a non-static function.
>
> Personally, I wish that it weren't legal to call a static 
> function with an
> object and that you had to explicitly use the class, but that's 
> not the way
> that it is in D, C++, and Java (and probably the same for C#, 
> though I'm not
> sure).
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Strange thing.
But I understand, thanks. :)