Overloading static methods

[Jonathan M Davis]

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