Why do I listen to my sleep coding self?

[BobJanova]

Ok so let's have an example.

public static class BaseService {
public static void LoadData() {
Console.WriteLine(GetDataSource());
}

protected virtual static string GetDataSource();
}

public static class FileService : BaseService {
protected override static string GetDataSource() { return "file.dat"; }
}

public static class DatabaseService : BaseService {
protected override static string GetDataSource() { return "database"; }
}

... and calling code

void Run() {
DatabaseService.LoadData();
FileService.LoadData();
}

This would print "database" and "file.dat", because the class used for the vtable lookups would be taken from the data type used for the call (i.e. DatabaseService.LoadData). That would be resolved at compile time and based on the static declaration type used in the call, not dynamic object type lookups as with instance dispatch. A related good idea is the ability to pass service classes around and dispatch off them:

void Run(Class<BaseService> service) {
service.LoadData();
}

... called like Run(DatabaseService) which would bake in the type for dispatch.

[Lost User]

Ok, I see what you mean.

[AnnPandora]

Lucky you! Allowed to give yourself some special permissions :laugh:

[OriginalGriff]

The down side is the Christmas party is a little lonely... ;)

Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952) Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)

[AnnPandora]

Started working here the week after they had their Christmas party so I can't give you any feedback on that one, yet! :-D

[PIEBALDconsult]

harold aptroot wrote:

no vptr

Don't get hung up on how current languages are implemented. I too would like a language that allows static members in interfaces and abstracts. If a Bright compiler developer wanted to make this happen, I'm sure he could, it would likely have to be very different from current implementations. (It's way beyond my skills of course.)

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.

[Chris Maunder]

OriginalGriff wrote:

abstract static

OriginalGriff wrote:

Anyone else done this?

Yes, for exactly the same thing. Was such a perfect solution to the problem. Except that it wasn't. Obviously. I even still have the code in place, safely commented out, just to remind me.

cheers Chris Maunder

[Paulo Zemek]

Make it more dynamic. Instead of static abstract, make it a static property of a delegate type.

[Paulo Zemek]

Delphi allowed virtual static methods... so I think it probably allowed abstract static methods too.

[HardikPatel SE]

I also made that mistake once.... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Hardik Patel

[kalberts]

Check your passport photo: The 1st law of passport photos: The more you look like your passport photo, the more you need vacation

[JimmyRopes]

very different from current implementations[^] :-D

**_Once you lose your pride the rest is easy.

I would agree with you but then we both would be wrong._**
The report of my death was an exaggeration - Mark Twain Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes

[SortaCore]

I once coded a class function in C++ that calls realloc() or malloc(), based on whether "this" points to null. It then deletes this and returns This.

[Lost User]

That's.. kind of dirty

[SortaCore]

Not only that, it calls _msize() on the this pointer and checks against another size parameter for the realloc. The last member in the class was a 0-byte array, for which the _msize() of the pointer minus size of other class members gave the array size.

[john morrison leon]

If you are going tp code in your sleep then choose a language that will better match your fantasies.

[PIEBALDconsult]

Oh my, I've been Osmosian-rolled. :sigh:

You'll never get very far if all you do is follow instructions.

[Paulo Zemek]

My anti-virus considered it as a trojan horse.

[patbob]

BobJanova wrote:

static inheritance (i.e. static virtual in C# speak), and that's a really useful concept that is missing in C#

Couldn't you use a singleton of some related class hierarchy that implements the "static" code?

We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.

[Frank Malcolm]

As Gilbert & Sullivan put it (in Iolanthe), When you’re lying awake With a dismal headache, And repose is taboo’d by anxiety, I conceive you may use Any language you choose To indulge in, without impropriety;