Overloading static methods

[Marco Leise]

Am 29.08.2011, 22:24 Uhr, schrieb Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>:

> 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

Java allows it, but gives a warning and auto-correct option to use the  
class reference instead, in Eclipse. That probably means that there is no  
justifiable use-case for it.