Hi, > > Why do assume a particular implementation? Marking a class > sealed and > > abstract seems like a perfectly sensible way to compile > "static class". > > I think they might have felt that `static' conveys better the > intention.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. What I meant was: The way to compile "static class" would be to emit a class that is both abstract and sealed (and not have a private constructor, like you said). Regards, Jeroen _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
