Why Doesn't C# Allow Static Methods to Implement an Interface?

Why was C# designed this way?

As I understand it, an interface only describes behaviour, and serves the purpose of describing a contractual obligation for classes implementing the interface that certain behaviour is implemented.

If classes wish to implement that behavour in a shared method, why shouldn't they?

Here is an example of what I have in mind:

// 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;
    }

    ....

 }

Assuming you are asking why you can't do this:

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; }
}

For a more complicated situation, you could always declare another static method and delegate to that. In trying come up with an example, I couldn't think of any reason you would do something non-trivial in both a static and instance context, so I'll spare you a FooBar blob, and take it as an indication that it might not be a good idea.


My (simplified) technical reason is that static methods are not in the vtable, and the call site is chosen at compile time. It's the same reason you can't have override or virtual static members. For more details, you'd need a CS grad or compiler wonk - of which I'm neither.

For the political reason, I'll quote Eric Lippert (who is a compiler wonk, and holds a Bachelor of Mathematics, Computer science and Applied Mathematics from University of Waterloo (source: LinkedIn):

...the core design principle of static methods, the principle that gives them their name...[is]...it can always be determined exactly, at compile time, what method will be called. That is, the method can be resolved solely by static analysis of the code.

Note that Lippert does leave room for a so-called type method:

That is, a method associated with a type (like a static), which does not take a non-nullable “this” argument (unlike an instance or virtual), but one where the method called would depend on the constructed type of T (unlike a static, which must be determinable at compile time).

but is yet to be convinced of its usefulness.


Most answers here seem to miss the whole point. Polymorphism can be used not only between instances, but also between types. This is often needed, when we use generics.

Suppose we have type parameter in generic method and we need to do some operation with it. We dont want to instantinate, because we are unaware of the constructors.

For example:

Repository GetRepository<T>()
{
  //need to call T.IsQueryable, but can't!!!
  //need to call T.RowCount
  //need to call T.DoSomeStaticMath(int param)
}

...
var r = GetRepository<Customer>()

Unfortunately, I can come up only with "ugly" alternatives:

  • Use reflection Ugly and beats the idea of interfaces and polymorphism.

  • Create completely separate factory class

    This might greatly increase the complexity of the code. For example, if we are trying to model domain objects, each object would need another repository class.

  • Instantiate and then call the desired interface method

    This can be hard to implement even if we control the source for the classes, used as generic parameters. The reason is that, for example we might need the instances to be only in well-known, "connected to DB" state.

  • Example:

    public class Customer 
    {
      //create new customer
      public Customer(Transaction t) { ... }
    
      //open existing customer
      public Customer(Transaction t, int id) { ... }
    
      void SomeOtherMethod() 
      { 
        //do work...
      }
    }
    

    in order to use instantination for solving the static interface problem we need to do the following thing:

    public class Customer: IDoSomeStaticMath
    {
      //create new customer
      public Customer(Transaction t) { ... }
    
      //open existing customer
      public Customer(Transaction t, int id) { ... }
    
      //dummy instance
      public Customer() { IsDummy = true; }
    
      int DoSomeStaticMath(int a) { }
    
      void SomeOtherMethod() 
      { 
        if(!IsDummy) 
        {
          //do work...
        }
      }
    }
    

    This is obviously ugly and also unnecessary complicates the code for all other methods. Obviously, not an elegant solution either!

    链接地址: http://www.djcxy.com/p/38148.html

    上一篇: 最短的命令来计算在Unix上的一列输出的总和?

    下一篇: 为什么C#不允许静态方法来实现接口?