<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>C# Whidbey Featurette #3: Static classes</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx</link><description>Because all functions in C# must live inside of a class, there are some clases - System.Math is a canonical example - that are merely collections of static methods. Since it's useless to create an instance of such a class, in current versions of C#, you</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: C# Whidbey Featurette #3: Static classes</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#112313</link><pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:45:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:112313</guid><dc:creator>Paul Bartlett</dc:creator><description>With reference to the fact that these classes are &amp;quot;sealed&amp;quot;, I was recently investigating whether static methods were inherited:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a target="_new" href="http://blogs.geekdojo.net/pdbartlett/archive/2004/04/06/1578.aspx"&gt;http://blogs.geekdojo.net/pdbartlett/archive/2004/04/06/1578.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I concluded they were, but if you check the comments you'll see that a far more diligent fellow 'dojo-er (Richard) actually checked out the IL which seemed to suggest that this is a C#-ism (syntactic sugar on the part of the C# compiler) rather than something supported by MSIL itself.</description></item><item><title>re: C# Whidbey Featurette #3: Static classes</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#112471</link><pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:25:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:112471</guid><dc:creator>Max</dc:creator><description>While it's nice to see the static keyword in Whidbey I was just wondering why you haven't choosen &amp;quot;abstract sealed&amp;quot; instead?</description></item><item><title>re: C# Whidbey Featurette #3: Static classes</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#112513</link><pubDate>Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:34:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:112513</guid><dc:creator>Wim</dc:creator><description>&amp;quot;..the compiler will give you an error if you write an instance method.&amp;quot;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Just for completeness - I assume this isn't limited to just instance methods, but also to instance properties and member fields, correct?</description></item><item><title>re: C# Whidbey Featurette #3: Static classes</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#112744</link><pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:00:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:112744</guid><dc:creator>Fernando Tubio</dc:creator><description>So no more Environment.HasShutdownStarted fiascos... :)</description></item><item><title>re: C# Whidbey Featurette #3: Static classes</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#112828</link><pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2004 05:18:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:112828</guid><dc:creator>Talbott Crowell</dc:creator><description>I like the idea of static classes and look forward to this improvement to C#.  I don't think &amp;quot;abstract sealed&amp;quot; is a good idea since abstract implies incomplete (requires inheritance for full implementation).</description></item><item><title>C# Featurette Suggestion</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#113094</link><pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:55:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:113094</guid><dc:creator>Something Clever</dc:creator><description>I suggest that Microsoft could extend the syntax of C# to allow checked and unchecked wherever unsafe is allowed.</description></item><item><title>re: C# Whidbey Featurette #3: Static classes</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#113159</link><pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:13:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:113159</guid><dc:creator>Max</dc:creator><description>@Talbott&lt;br&gt;abstract does _not require_ inheritance for a full implementation:&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;abstract class Foo&lt;br&gt;{&lt;br&gt;static void DoSomething(){}&lt;br&gt;}&lt;br&gt;...&lt;br&gt;Foo.DoSomething();&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;is totally legal code. 'abstract' only means no instance can be created - at least at the view of the Compiler/Runtime.&lt;br&gt;But I have to agree that most people think 'abstract' means an incomplete class. So it may be less confusing to introduce a &amp;quot;new&amp;quot; keyword instead.</description></item><item><title>Lazycoder weblog &amp;raquo; new static modifier for classes in Whidbye</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#113247</link><pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:46:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:113247</guid><dc:creator>TrackBack</dc:creator><description>Lazycoder weblog &amp;amp;raquo; new static modifier for classes in Whidbye</description></item><item><title>C# Featurette #3 from Eric Gunnerson</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#113299</link><pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:05:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:113299</guid><dc:creator>Code/Tea/Etc...</dc:creator><description /></item><item><title>Whidbey C# Featurette</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#113350</link><pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2004 22:59:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:113350</guid><dc:creator>Christian Nagel's OneNotes</dc:creator><description /></item><item><title>New and Notable 45</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#113783</link><pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:31:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:113783</guid><dc:creator>Sam Gentile's Blog</dc:creator><description /></item><item><title>re: C# Whidbey Featurette #3: Static classes</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#113980</link><pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:12:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:113980</guid><dc:creator>enki</dc:creator><description>Re: Max,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It's totally legal, but semantically, &amp;quot;abstract&amp;quot; sounds like something that shouldn't exist on its own. Static gives a better definition of the actual function the keyword achieves.</description></item><item><title>Static Class - Abstract does not require inheritence for full implementation.</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#115747</link><pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2004 07:20:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:115747</guid><dc:creator>Information -</dc:creator><description /></item><item><title>re: C# Whidbey Featurette #3: Static classes</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#126133</link><pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2004 01:02:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:126133</guid><dc:creator>Talbott Crowell</dc:creator><description>@Max&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Good point.  I usually hide my constructors with a private constructor, but you could use abstract instead.  Personally, I think semantics are key to keeping a language simple and the codebase built on it maintainable.  Semantically, abstract implies abstraction, not utility.  If keywords indicate intention, code is more maintainable because the code is self-documenting.</description></item><item><title>re: C# Whidbey Featurette #3: Static classes</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#139677</link><pubDate>Sun, 23 May 2004 02:37:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:139677</guid><dc:creator>Branco</dc:creator><description>Ah, I see: just like VB.Net's standard Modules... ;-)</description></item><item><title>re: C# Whidbey Featurette #3: Static classes</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#204765</link><pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2004 06:34:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:204765</guid><dc:creator>dianyingxiazai</dc:creator><description>href=//www.dmoz.net.cn/ wangzhidaquang&lt;br&gt;href=//www.86dmoz.com/ jingpingwangzhi&lt;br&gt;href=//www.kamun.com/ mianfeidianying&lt;br&gt;href=//www.kamun.com/ dianyingxiazai&lt;br&gt;href=//www.kamun.com/ MP3 free download&lt;br&gt;href=//www.pc530.net/ diannaoaihaozhe&lt;br&gt;href=//www.5icc.com/ duangxingcaixingxiazha&lt;br&gt;href=//www.dianyingxiazai.com/ dianyingxiazai&lt;br&gt;href=//www.yinyuexiazai.com/ yinyuexiazai</description></item><item><title>Whidbey C# Featurette</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/ericgu/archive/2004/04/13/112274.aspx#352781</link><pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:57:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:352781</guid><dc:creator>Christian Nagel's OneNotes</dc:creator><description /></item></channel></rss>