Re: static class inheritance, generalized
- From: "Christof Nordiek" <cn@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 10:55:49 +0200
"Frans Bouma [C# MVP]" <perseus.usenetNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb
Furthermore, the necessity which makes you want what you're suggesting
is the friction between procedural programming and OO programming: math
methods and calculation methods are typical procedural
methods/routines, which don't really fit into the OO paradigm, unless
you'd add Sin() as a method of an int or double for example.
I'm not sure, what you want to say by this. Do you mean OO-languages
shouldn't have static methods at all?
BTW What you suggest would reduce the use of the method. I would have to
explicitly cast an int to double to call the sinus of it, or there had to be
a special version of Sin() in the int class, wich internally would only cast
int to double and call Sin(double).
Christof
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: static class inheritance, generalized
- From: Frans Bouma [C# MVP]
- Re: static class inheritance, generalized
- References:
- static class inheritance, generalized
- From: Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]
- Re: static class inheritance, generalized
- From: Frans Bouma [C# MVP]
- static class inheritance, generalized
- Prev by Date: Re: static class inheritance, generalized
- Next by Date: Form designer looses controls
- Previous by thread: Re: static class inheritance, generalized
- Next by thread: Re: static class inheritance, generalized
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading