Can call static method with null reference

[monarch_dodra]

On Sunday, 23 June 2013 at 10:09:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Sunday, June 23, 2013 12:02:42 Namespace wrote:
>> > I don't see what's so terrible about it
>> 
>> It's bug prone.
>> 
>> class Foo {
>> public:
>> 	static void test1() { }
>> 	void test2() { }
>> }
>> 
>> Foo f;
>> f.test1(); /// Oh nice, that works, f is not null.
>> f.test2(); /// WTF? f is null?
>
> I fail to see what's bug-prone about that. It's confusing, but 
> it's not
> causing any bugs.
>
>> Also I don't know why I should call static methods from an
>> instance. What's the purpose?
>
> It's stupid and pointless as far as I can tell, but I believe 
> that C++, Java,
> C#, and D all do it, so as stupid as it is, it's a common 
> stupidity. I
> certainly wish that we could change it, but I wouldn't expect 
> Walter to agree
> to the change, since it would break at least some existing 
> code, and I suspect
> that he doesn't consider the fact that you can call static 
> functions on
> instances to be a problem. That's not the sort of thing that he 
> generally
> seems to think is an issue. It's almost always stuff that 
> causes actual bugs
> that he agrees to change and not things that are aesthetically 
> displeasing or
> which could theoretically cause bugs.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

C++ doesn't allow it. I don't know about the rest.

If anything, I find overloading static non static could make 
sense:

A.print(); //"I'm an A!"
a.print(); //"I'm an A called foo!"

With this in mind, it can mean that a struct can first define the 
static function, and in the future, add extra logic to handle 
information from a specific instance, yet without having to 
caller code.