On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Regan Heath <re...@netmail.co.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:43:43 +0100, Gor Gyolchanyan
> <gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> UFCS can be used to emulate adding new members/instance methods to a
>>> class
>>> or struct:
>>>
>>> class Foo
>>> {
>>> }
>>>
>>> void bar (Foo foo, int x) {}
>>>
>>> auto foo = new Foo;
>>> foo.bar(3);
>>>
>>> Is it possible, somehow, to emulate adding new _static_ methods to a
>>> class,
>>> something like this:
>>>
>>> void fooBar (/*something*/, int x) {}
>>>
>>> Making this possible:
>>>
>>> Foo.fooBar(4);
>>>
>>> --
>>> /Jacob Carlborg
>>
>>
>> I'd expect it to look like this:
>>
>> void fooBar(Foo)(int x) {}
>
>
> That looks too much like a template function to me. What about:
>
> void fooBar(static Foo, int x) {}
>
> Note: no parameter name for the "static" Foo parameter (as it's not really a
> parameter - simply a placeholder to indicate it's UFCS).
>
>
> C# doesn't have static UFCS (called "extension methods" in C# parlance) tho
> some people have wanted it:
> http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/forums/en-US/csharpgeneral/thread/8ac0e6bf-c859-4cc4-919f-c80eedfccf63
>
> I guess the reason it doesn't exist is that there is no technical reason for
> it, all it gives you is a nicer syntax.
>
> You can get fairly close with a custom static class, static method taking an
> instance of the class you want to 'extend'.
>
> R
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Yes, that does look bad. How about this?
void fooBar(T : Foo)(int x) { }
--
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.
