On Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 15:30:38 UTC, Martin Cejp wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 15:21:54 UTC, Frustrated wrote:
No, you are mixing concepts. Logger.print is a function that
uses
a vtable and takes a hidden parameter this.
ConsoleLogger.print is a regular function that is not in a
vtable(because it is static) and does not take a hidden
parameter(again, because it is static).
So, when you do ConsoleLogger.print how the heck would the
compiler know which one you meant to use? While this might
have a
solution, in some cases in general a virtual method REQUIRES a
virtual table and by using the keyword static on a function you
are saying it is not part of the virtual table.
Guess what: I DON'T CARE.
No really, I don't care at all about the implementation details.
If you look at it from the purely semantic view, there's no
ambiguity: got an instance? call the instance method. no
instance? call the static one.
Technically, yes, there would need to be two methods generated
because of ABI differences, but this could be done behind the
scenes. By making a method both override and static, you'd tell
the compiler to do exactly that. Of course, the question is
whether this would really be worth implementing and based on
the reactions so far, I guess the answer is Not at all. I'm
surprised that nobody else misses this feature, though.
I don't care either. It's not that I don't disagree with you but
I simply no longer care any more. I would care, and assuming such
a thing mattered then I could care. I just don't any more....
