Distinct "static" parent property contents for children

[Timoses]

On Wednesday, 8 November 2017 at 18:33:15 UTC, Steven 
Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 11/8/17 12:38 PM, Timoses wrote:
>> Hey,
>> 
>> wrapping my head around this atm..
>> 
>
> [snip]
>
> so what you want is a static variable per subclass, but that 
> the base class can access.
>
> What I would recommend is this:
>
> abstract class Base
> {
>    int x();
> }
>
> class A : Base
> {
>   private static int _x = 1;
>   int x() { return _x; }
> }
>
> class B : Base
> {
>   private static int _x = 2;
>   int x() { return _x; }
> }
>
> Note that this doesn't do *everything* a static variable can, 
> since x() requires an instance (i.e. you can't do A.x). But the 
> actual variable itself is static since the backing is static. 
> This is the only way to provide access of x to the Base that I 
> can think of.
>
> -Steve

I suppose this is what Adam suggested, correct?



This is a more general question: Why is it not possible to 
implement/override static methods?

interface I // or abstract class I
{
     static int fun();
}
class A : I
{
     static int fun() { return 3; }
}
void main()
{
     I i = new A();
     i.fun();        // <--- linker error
}

or replacing interface with an abstract base class.

Static overriding would be quite interesting in terms of 
compile-time handling of objects.