static class inheritance, generalized

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

I'm trying to construct a compelling example of the need for a language
feature, with full support for generics, to introduce all static members and
nested classes of another type into the current name search scope.

i.e. a very simple application would be

class ManyComputation s
{
calling System.Math;

... z = Sin(3*x) + Log(y); // qualifiers not needed
}

This provides a superset of the "inherit from a static class" concept,
without actually using inheritance or conflicting with "sealed".

All C# experts are invited to join the discussion over in
microsoft.publi c.dotnet.langua ges.vc in the thread titled "howto decouple in
..NET?" Some familiarity with C++/CLI is a definite plus.

Thanks.

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] <rb*@nospam.nos pamwrote:

I'm trying to construct a compelling example of the need for a language
feature, with full support for generics, to introduce all static members and
nested classes of another type into the current name search scope.

i.e. a very simple application would be

class ManyComputation s
{
calling System.Math;

... z = Sin(3*x) + Log(y); // qualifiers not needed
}

This provides a superset of the "inherit from a static class" concept,
without actually using inheritance or conflicting with "sealed".

Because it's not actually inheritance, I'd try to avoid using the term
wherever possible.

All C# experts are invited to join the discussion over in
microsoft.publi c.dotnet.langua ges.vc in the thread titled "howto decouple in
.NET?" Some familiarity with C++/CLI is a definite plus.

I'll see if I've got time to join in.

One reason MS *might* want to do it - Java has it :)
The syntax used is quite nice, too - static import. The equivalent
would be static using:

static using System.Math;

I wouldn't suggest doing it within a class though - I'd put it with the
rest of the using statements.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.co mwrote in message
news:MP******** *************@m snews.microsoft .com...

Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] <rb*@nospam.nos pamwrote:

>I'm trying to construct a compelling example of the need for a language
feature, with full support for generics, to introduce all static members
and
nested classes of another type into the current name search scope.

i.e. a very simple application would be

class ManyComputation s
{
calling System.Math;

... z = Sin(3*x) + Log(y); // qualifiers not needed
}

This provides a superset of the "inherit from a static class" concept,
without actually using inheritance or conflicting with "sealed".

Because it's not actually inheritance, I'd try to avoid using the term
wherever possible.

>All C# experts are invited to join the discussion over in
microsoft.publ ic.dotnet.langu ages.vc in the thread titled "howto decouple
in
.NET?" Some familiarity with C++/CLI is a definite plus.

I'll see if I've got time to join in.

One reason MS *might* want to do it - Java has it :)
The syntax used is quite nice, too - static import. The equivalent
would be static using:

static using System.Math;

I wouldn't suggest doing it within a class though - I'd put it with the
rest of the using statements.

Oh, it has to be available in a class. Absolutely positively. But I've
already explained why in the other group. That's not to say it wouldn't be
nice if it also worked at namespace scope.

>
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] <rb*@nospam.nos pamwrote:

I wouldn't suggest doing it within a class though - I'd put it with the
rest of the using statements.

Oh, it has to be available in a class. Absolutely positively. But I've
already explained why in the other group. That's not to say it wouldn't be
nice if it also worked at namespace scope.

It looks like we're talking about *completely* different things. The
example you gave of being able to use the Sin and Log methods without
further qualification are very different from the desires you have in
expressed in the VC group, as far as I understand them (which isn't
terribly far).

For the purposes of making static members from one type available in
another type without qualification, adding the capability to using
statements is fine.

I'm not *entirely* sure what you're asking for in the VC group, but it
seems to extend *way* past that.

I think it would be a much more fruitful discussion here than in the
C++ group - and more on-topic too, if you're suggesting a C# feature
rather than a C++ feature.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Chris Mullins [MVP]]

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.co mwrote:

Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] <rb*@nospam.nos pamwrote:

For the purposes of making static members from one type available in
another type without qualification, adding the capability to using
statements is fine.

As I pointed out in the C++ thread, C# 3.0 does have this exact feature -
they're called Extension Methods.

http://blogs.msdn.com/abhinaba/archi...15/467926.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...cs3spec_topic3

--
Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise , Microsoft C# MVP
http://www.coversant.com/blogs/cmullins

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Chris Mullins [MVP] <cm******@yahoo .comwrote:

For the purposes of making static members from one type available in
another type without qualification, adding the capability to using
statements is fine.

As I pointed out in the C++ thread, C# 3.0 does have this exact feature -
they're called Extension Methods.

http://blogs.msdn.com/abhinaba/archi...15/467926.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...cs3spec_topic3

It's not that *exact* feature. For one thing, it doesn't apply to
existing methods. For another, it makes them appear to be instance
methods. I certainly wouldn't want to call x.Sin() + y.Cos() in my code
- I'd much rather be able to use Cos(x) + Sin(y).

It may well go part of the way though, in many cases.

--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.co m>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

[Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]]

"Chris Mullins [MVP]" <cm******@yahoo .comwrote in message
news:O9******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP02.phx.gbl...

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.co mwrote:

>Ben Voigt [C++ MVP] <rb*@nospam.nos pamwrote:

>For the purposes of making static members from one type available in
another type without qualification, adding the capability to using
statements is fine.

As I pointed out in the C++ thread, C# 3.0 does have this exact feature -
they're called Extension Methods.

Your post in the C++ thread got recalled before I could look at it. I was
looking forward to hearing your input, too.

>
http://blogs.msdn.com/abhinaba/archi...15/467926.aspx
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...cs3spec_topic3

--
Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise , Microsoft C# MVP
http://www.coversant.com/blogs/cmullins

[Chris Mullins [MVP]]

"Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" <rb*@nospam.nos pamwrote

Your post in the C++ thread got recalled before I could look at it. I was
looking forward to hearing your input, too.

My post got recalled? How... unexpected. I wonder how that happened.

I can see it in Google Groups, for what it's worth...

--
Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise , Microsoft C# MVP
http://www.coversant.com/blogs/cmullins

[Christof Nordiek]

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <sk***@pobox.co mschrieb

The equivalent
would be static using:

static using System.Math;

Hi Jon,

why the keyword static here, why not simply:

using System.Math;

Christof

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

On Jun 6, 8:07 am, "Christof Nordiek" <[e-mail] wrote:

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <[e-mail] schriebThe equivalent

would be static using:

static using System.Math;

why the keyword static here, why not simply:

using System.Math;

I suppose that would be okay in C# (in Java you can individually
import classes, not just packages). However, given that it's not doing
*quite* the same thing as normal using directive, I think I'd prefer
the extra "static" to make it more obvious to the reader. If you're
dealing with some unfamiliar libraries, it may not be immediately
clear whether a particular name is a namespace or a class.

Jon