like:

public interface test
{
  public static void blub();
}

static class test_static: test
{
  private static void blub()
  {
     int i = 10;
  }
}

int main()
{
  test_static.blub();

  return 0;
}

any idea why static could makes sense in an interface? any example?

another thing:

why can i public "blub" in the interface and private it in the class?

On Friday, February 03, 2012 08:30:31 dennis luehring wrote:
> any idea why static could makes sense in an interface? any example?

The same reason it makes sense in a class. I don't see any difference.

- Jonathan M Davis

Am 03.02.2012 08:40, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> On Friday, February 03, 2012 08:30:31 dennis luehring wrote:
>>  any idea why static could makes sense in an interface? any example?
>
> The same reason it makes sense in a class. I don't see any difference.

that also my first thought - but why do c#, java (and c++) don't allow it?

and what about the public private thing in my example?

From OO design it does not make any sense. I was even't aware that this is possible in D.

Static methods are intented to be used as what is commonly known as class methods in Smalltalk. Methods
that are attached to the class class, usually known as metaclass. These methods are then transversal to
all instances of a given class and are called by ClassName.Method() .

Interfaces don't have implementations per se, they only describe a set of funcionalities that any implementing
class is obliged to provide. Hence there is no direct implementation and no difference between instances and
metaclasses.

D interfaces seem then to provide a mechanism where implementing classes are forced to implement static methods,
but since when calling interface methods the form is always Interface.Method(), what is the added benefict to force
static method implementations?

Which use cases have lead to such decision?

--
Paulo

"Jonathan M Davis"  wrote in message news:mailman.298.1328254901.25230.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...

On Friday, February 03, 2012 08:30:31 dennis luehring wrote:
> any idea why static could makes sense in an interface? any example?

The same reason it makes sense in a class. I don't see any difference.

- Jonathan M Davis 

Le 03/02/2012 11:40, Paulo Pinto a écrit :
>  From OO design it does not make any sense. I was even't aware that this
> is possible in D.
>
> Static methods are intented to be used as what is commonly known as
> class methods in Smalltalk. Methods
> that are attached to the class class, usually known as metaclass. These
> methods are then transversal to
> all instances of a given class and are called by ClassName.Method() .
>
> Interfaces don't have implementations per se, they only describe a set
> of funcionalities that any implementing
> class is obliged to provide. Hence there is no direct implementation and
> no difference between instances and
> metaclasses.
>
> D interfaces seem then to provide a mechanism where implementing classes
> are forced to implement static methods,
> but since when calling interface methods the form is always
> Interface.Method(), what is the added benefict to force
> static method implementations?
>
> Which use cases have lead to such decision?
>
> --
> Paulo
>

I think this is collateral effet of the qualifier policy of D. For me, this doesn't make any sense too, and it is a strong +1 for not allowing that.

This is misleading for beginners.

On Friday, February 03, 2012 11:40:53 Paulo Pinto wrote:
> From OO design it does not make any sense. I was even't aware that this is possible in D.
> 
> Static methods are intented to be used as what is commonly known as class
> methods in Smalltalk. Methods
> that are attached to the class class, usually known as metaclass. These
> methods are then transversal to
> all instances of a given class and are called by ClassName.Method() .

That's not generally true of languages such as Java, C#, and D. static functions on classes are like any other non-member functions. It's just that they're on the class rather than free functions. Usually, they're put there because what they do relates to the class. That same idea applies equally to interfaces. Java and C# probably don't do that because they don't allow function definitions of any kind of interfaces.

> Interfaces don't have implementations per se, they only describe a set of
> funcionalities that any implementing
> class is obliged to provide. Hence there is no direct implementation and no
> difference between instances and
> metaclasses.

D interfaces _do_ allow for function implementations under certain circumstances.

- Jonathan M Davis

On Friday, February 03, 2012 09:03:21 dennis luehring wrote:
> Am 03.02.2012 08:40, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> > On Friday, February 03, 2012 08:30:31 dennis luehring wrote:
> >>  any idea why static could makes sense in an interface? any example?
> > 
> > The same reason it makes sense in a class. I don't see any difference.
> 
> that also my first thought - but why do c#, java (and c++) don't allow it?

C++ doesn't have interfaces, and C# and Java don't allow function implementations of any kind on interfaces. The same is not true for D.

> and what about the public private thing in my example?

It looks like a bug.

- Jonathan M Davis

Am 03.02.2012 13:02, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
> C++ doesn't have interfaces, and C# and Java don't allow function
> implementations of any kind on interfaces. The same is not true for D.

but as you can see in my example - my static function isn't implemented in the interface scope

interface test
{
  static void blub(); <----
}

there is no example of an not implemented static in a interface

Am 03.02.2012 13:10, schrieb dennis luehring:
> Am 03.02.2012 13:02, schrieb Jonathan M Davis:
>>  C++ doesn't have interfaces, and C# and Java don't allow function
>>  implementations of any kind on interfaces. The same is not true for D.
>
> but as you can see in my example - my static function isn't implemented
> in the interface scope
>
> interface test
> {
>     static void blub();<----
> }
>
> there is no example of an not implemented static in a interface
>
>

i think should file an bug report for both

On 02/03/2012 04:00 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> D interfaces_do_  allow for function implementations under certain
> circumstances.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

A code snippet please.