Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: virtual static class functions
Message-ID: <10586@alice.UUCP>
Date: 17 Mar 90 05:31:50 GMT
References: <38579@cornell.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 18

In article <38579@cornell.UUCP>, deb@svax.cs.cornell.edu (David Baraff) writes:

> Why can't static class functions be virtual? That is,
> is there some reason why allowing static virtual class functions
> would be bad? I can't see that the implementation would pose
> any problems.

A virtual function implies run-time dispatching based on the
type of the object used to call the function.

A static function implies that an object need not be supplied
to call it.

If no object is supplied, how would the implementation determine
which function to call?
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com