interface Foo {
	static Foo opCall() {
		return null;
	}
}

Compiling the above code gives "function opCall function body is not abstract in interface Foo".
Personally, I'm in favour of letting interfaces have unrestricted static members, in this case to allow all implementations of the type to be hidden. Whether or not that's allowed, this error message is wrong.
If interfaces can have static methods, then this should compile fine.
If they can't the error should say so.
Thoughts?

Sam

>Personally, I'm in favour of letting interfaces have unrestricted static members, in this case to allow all implementations of the type to be hidden.

I disagree, I dont think interfaces should have any method bodies, but I do agree an error let u know that :)

Charlie

In article <cbt22d$f7i$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Sam McCall says...
>
>interface Foo {
>	static Foo opCall() {
>		return null;
>	}
>}
>
>Compiling the above code gives "function opCall function body is not
>abstract in interface Foo".
>Personally, I'm in favour of letting interfaces have unrestricted static
>members, in this case to allow all implementations of the type to be
>hidden. Whether or not that's allowed, this error message is wrong.
>If interfaces can have static methods, then this should compile fine.
>If they can't the error should say so.
>Thoughts?
>
>Sam