inheriting statics

[zwetan]

On 4/23/07, P T Withington <ptw at pobox.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

where is the obscurity ?

the static is defined "in scope" of the class,
so accessing it "in the class definition scope" make sens to me.


On 4/24/07, Peter Hall <peter.hall at memorphic.com> wrote:
> Seems to me like everything would just be simpler if they are not
> inherited and not in-scope in subclasses...
>

for the not inherited I agree, for the "not in-scope in subclasses" I don't,
it is usefull to be able to access statics in such way.

my 0.2€
zwetan