Re: static virtual is a keyhole?

Balog Pal wrote:
> In C++ member functions can be static, or can be virtual.
> However they can't be static and virtual at the same time.

Becase
- static means: it has nothing to do with an object
- virtual means: it depends on the current object

> Currently there's a discussion on both csc++ and clc++m showing that
> implementig virtual statics in the compiler would be trivial. And the
> functionality is needed by programmers, who currently must use
> duplicate functions introducng redundancy.

Currently there is a discussion showing that reflection is missing from C++,
which is a completely different issue than a logical nonsense (and a 100th
overload of the static keyword).

> Looks like a case of a keyhole to me.

No, it is not.  Keyhole is a keyhole.  You might (with very high tolerance)
call the missing multiple inheritance in Java a keyhole.  The nonexistence
of dynamic-static, invisible-color, truthtelling-liar etc. is simple fact of
life.

White Wolf