static members

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Greg Young - 22 Jun 2004 20:24 GMT

Has anyone dealt with putting static implementations in interfaces ? you
"can" do it (I am sure in IL) ... I'm wonderring if vb.net and c# play nice
when you do it ...

Reply to this Message

Scott M. - 22 Jun 2004 22:05 GMT

VB .NET does not allow Shared (the VB term for static) members in an
interface.

> Has anyone dealt with putting static implementations in interfaces ? you
> "can" do it (I am sure in IL) ... I'm wonderring if vb.net and c# play nice
> when you do it ...

Reply to this Message

Greg Young - 22 Jun 2004 22:30 GMT

I can do it though IL and I have a few cases where it would be quite
beneficial ... the question is how will vb/C# handle (moreso in the
development environment/compiler warnings as I am sure the CLR will handle
it fine) I could easily write a test, the question was just a time saver.

> VB .NET does not allow Shared (the VB term for static) members in an
> interface.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> nice
> > when you do it ...

Reply to this Message

Scott M. - 23 Jun 2004 01:10 GMT

You could also consider creating an abstract class. Shared/static members
are allowed in this context and you get the same result.

> I can do it though IL and I have a few cases where it would be quite
> beneficial ... the question is how will vb/C# handle (moreso in the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> > nice
> > > when you do it ...

Reply to this Message

Kit George (MSFT) - 23 Jun 2004 19:28 GMT

I would strongly suggest the abstract approach, as opposed to fillding with
IL Greg. Even if a specific langauge (VB or C#) respects this at a point in
time, I would work within the constraints of what the compilers officialy
support, since you know that that support will continue to be there from
version to version. If you change things in il, then we may muck things up
for you in the future.

Reply to this Message

Greg Young - 23 Jun 2004 21:24 GMT

I agree and would have done it this way, however the code I am dealing with
is not mine and would require MAJOR architectural changes in order to do
this. I guess I will just hack it and put the methods external to the
interfaces although I have to admit I was also morbidly curious :D

> I would strongly suggest the abstract approach, as opposed to fillding with
> IL Greg. Even if a specific langauge (VB or C#) respects this at a point in
> time, I would work within the constraints of what the compilers officialy
> support, since you know that that support will continue to be there from
> version to version. If you change things in il, then we may muck things up
> for you in the future.

Reply to this Message

Rate this thread:

static members

Free Magazines