为什么是有用的访问静态成员"通过"继承类型？ [英] Why is it useful to access static members "through" inherited types?

问题描述

我很高兴C＃不会让你访问静态成员，就好像他们是实例成员。这样就避免了在Java中一个共同的错误：

I'm glad C# doesn't let you access static members 'as though' they were instance members. This avoids a common bug in Java:

Thread t = new Thread(..);
t.sleep(..); //Probably doesn't do what the programmer intended.

在另一方面，它的确实的让你通过访问静态成员派生类型。除了运营商（它可以节省你写的演员），我想不出任何情况下，这实际上是有帮助的。事实上，它积极鼓励失误，例如：

On the other hand, it does let you access static members 'through' derived types. Other than operators (where it saves you from writing casts), I can't think of any cases where this is actually helpful. In fact, it actively encourages mistakes such as:

// Nasty surprises ahead - won't throw; does something unintended:
// Creates a HttpWebRequest instead.
var ftpRequest = FtpWebRequest.Create(@"http://www.stackoverflow.com");

// Something seriously wrong here.
var areRefEqual = Dictionary<string, int>.ReferenceEquals(dict1, dict2);

我个人保持一遍又一遍犯类似的错误，当我通过陌生的API搜索我的方式（我记得与表达式树出发。我打 BinaryExpression 在编辑器中，并想知道为什么地球上的IntelliSense是为我提供 MakeUnary 。作为一个选项）

I personally keep committing similar errors over and over when I am searching my way through unfamiliar APIs (I remember starting off with expression trees; I hit BinaryExpression. in the editor and was wondering why on earth IntelliSense was offering me MakeUnary as an option).

在我的（短视）看来，这样的特征：

In my (shortsighted) opinion, this feature:

1. 不减少赘言;程序员指定类型名称这种或那种方式（不包括运营商和情况下，当用户在访问继承了当前类型的静态成员）。


2. 鼓励错误/误导性代码，如上面的那个。


3. 可能会建议程序员在C＃中展出的静态方法某种形式的多态的，当他们没有。


4. （次要）推出沉默，可能无意重新绑定上重新编译的可能性。

1. Doesn't reduce verbosity; the programmer has to specify a type-name one way or another (excluding operators and cases when one is accessing inherited static members of the current type).
2. Encourages bugs/ misleading code such as the one above.
3. May suggest to the programmer that static methods in C# exhibit some sort of 'polymorphism', when they don't.
4. (Minor) Introduces 'silent', possibly unintended rebinding possibilities on recompilation.

（国际海事组织，运营商是保证自己讨论的一个特例。）

(IMO, operators are a special case that warrant their own discussion.)

由于C＃是正常的语言成功的坑，为什么这个功能存在吗？我看不到它的好处（不是可发现等，这总是可以在IDE中解决），但我看到很多问题。

Given that C# is normally a "pit of success" language, why does this feature exist? I can't see its benefits (other than 'discoverability', which could always be solved in the IDE), but I see lots of problems.

推荐答案

我同意这是一个不好的特性。我不知道该怎么经常会有人在Stack Overflow上已经发布的代码：

I'd agree this is a misfeature. I don't know how often someone on Stack Overflow has posted code of:

ASCIIEncoding.ASCII

等等......这，而在执行的是在阅读代码术语误导性方面无害。

etc... which, while harmless in terms of execution is misleading in terms of reading the code.

显然为时已晚，现在去掉这个功能，虽然我猜C＃团队可以引入一个超级详细的警告模式，这和其他样式的问题。

Obviously it's too late to remove this "feature" now, although I guess the C# team could introduce a super-verbose warning mode for this and other style issues.

也许C＃的继任者将改善的事情...

Maybe C#'s successor will improve things...

这篇关于为什么是有用的访问静态成员"通过"继承类型？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！