On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Ben Kloosterman <[email protected]> wrote:
> let me start static members of interfaces have never been discussed > because they make no sense because the interface type is never used. > - There is a this method which is unused > - There are no constraints .Its the constraints or type relations that > give it meaning. > Right. Though adding static methods hardly seems like rocket science. They actually have nothing to do with the interface at all. In a simple view they are merely global procedures that live in the *namespace* defined by the Interface. In that view it's merely a human convenience to allow static methods in an interface. But if interfaces are parametric, and can have distinct implementations at different types, then of course the static methods can also have distinct implementations at different types. In that case the static methods act as a form of constrained *ad hoc* overloading in exactly the way that type class methods do. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
