inheriting statics

Sho Kuwamoto skuwamot at
Mon Apr 23 17:35:05 PDT 2007

FWIW, many Flex customers (who are used to Java) have complained about
statics not being inherited.


-----Original Message-----
From: es4-discuss-bounces at
[mailto:es4-discuss-bounces at] On Behalf Of P T Withington
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 1:31 PM
To: Jeff Dyer
Cc: es4-discuss
Subject: Re: inheriting statics

[Picking up on this ancient thread...]

If that is the argument against inheritance, why have the class  
statics of all your superclasses be 'in scope'?  Doesn't that lead to  
similar obscurity?  Doesn't it make for fragile code?

On 2007-01-09, at 12:55 EST, Jeff Dyer wrote:

> The argument against inheriting statics is one for simplicity. A class
> defines a factory and the type of instances created by that  
> factory. The
> class objects (the factories, not the instances) of different classes
> have unrelated types and purposes, even if the instance types they
> introduce are subtypes. Class statics are a simple convenience for
> sharing state that is somehow associated with the meaning of a
> particular class. Aliasing them through other class objects could lead
> to annoying name conflicts and obscure their otherwise clear meaning.
> Jd
Es4-discuss mailing list
Es4-discuss at

More information about the Es4-discuss mailing list