为什么c#是这样设计的?

根据我的理解,一个接口只描述行为,并且服务于描述实现接口的类的契约义务。

如果类希望在共享方法中实现这种行为,为什么不应该呢?

以下是我想到的一个例子:

// These items will be displayed in a list on the screen.
public interface IListItem {
  string ScreenName();
  ...
}

public class Animal: IListItem {
    // All animals will be called "Animal".
    public static string ScreenName() {
        return "Animal";
    }
....
}

public class Person: IListItem {

    private string name;

    // All persons will be called by their individual names.
    public string ScreenName() {
        return name;
    }

    ....

 }

当前回答

您想要的是允许通过Type或该类型的任何实例调用静态方法。这至少会导致歧义,这不是一个理想的特征。

关于这是否重要,这是最佳实践,以及这样做是否存在性能问题,将会有无休止的争论。通过简单地不支持它,c#使我们不必担心它。

遵循这一愿望的编译器也可能会失去一些优化,而这些优化可能会带来实例方法和静态方法之间更严格的分离。

其他回答

假设你在问为什么你不能这样做:

public interface IFoo {
    void Bar();
}

public class Foo: IFoo {
    public static void Bar() {}
}

This doesn't make sense to me, semantically. Methods specified on an interface should be there to specify the contract for interacting with an object. Static methods do not allow you to interact with an object - if you find yourself in the position where your implementation could be made static, you may need to ask yourself if that method really belongs in the interface. To implement your example, I would give Animal a const property, which would still allow it to be accessed from a static context, and return that value in the implementation.

public class Animal: IListItem {
    /* Can be tough to come up with a different, yet meaningful name!
     * A different casing convention, like Java has, would help here.
     */
    public const string AnimalScreenName = "Animal";
    public string ScreenName(){ return AnimalScreenName; }
}

对于更复杂的情况,您总是可以声明另一个静态方法并委托给它。在尝试给出一个例子的过程中,我想不出您在静态和实例上下文中都要做一些非平凡的事情的任何理由,因此我将给您一个FooBar blob,并将其作为它可能不是一个好主意的指示。

接口指定对象的行为。

静态方法不指定对象的行为,而是指定以某种方式影响对象的行为。

当类实现接口时,它是在为接口成员创建实例。虽然静态类型没有实例,但在接口中使用静态签名是没有意义的。

大多数人似乎忘记了在OOP中,类也是对象,所以它们有消息,出于某种原因,c#将其称为“静态方法”。 实例对象和类对象之间存在差异的事实只显示了语言中的缺陷或缺点。 对c#持乐观态度…

I think the question is getting at the fact that C# needs another keyword, for precisely this sort of situation. You want a method whose return value depends only on the type on which it is called. You can't call it "static" if said type is unknown. But once the type becomes known, it will become static. "Unresolved static" is the idea -- it's not static yet, but once we know the receiving type, it will be. This is a perfectly good concept, which is why programmers keep asking for it. But it didn't quite fit into the way the designers thought about the language.

因为它不可用,所以我采用如下所示的方式使用非静态方法。虽然不太理想,但至少对我来说,我找不到比这更有意义的方法了。

public interface IZeroWrapper<TNumber> {
  TNumber Zero {get;}
}

public class DoubleWrapper: IZeroWrapper<double> {
  public double Zero { get { return 0; } }
}