Re: static virtual method

slocum wrote:


How could that possibly make sense? Consider this:

class Base
{
public:
  virtual void func() = 0;
};

class Derived1 : public Base
{
public:
  virtual void func() {}
};

class Derived2 : public Base
{
public:
  virtual void func() {}
};

At runtime, which version of func() is called depends on which
*object* is hidden behind a pointer or reference to the base class:

Base *ptr1 = new Derived1;
Base *ptr2 = new Derived2;
ptr1->func(); // Derived1::func() called because ptr1 points to a
             // Derived1 object
ptr2->func(); // Derived2::func() called because ptr1 points to a
             // Derived2 object

A static method, however, is not called on a particular object. It
does not even need an object of the class to be instantiated. You
would have to specify the class explicitly, for example:

Derived1::staticFunc();
Derived2::staticFunc();
Base::staticFunc(); // does not make sense -- how should the compiler
                   // know which derived version you mean?

Therefore, the function's virtualness would be completely senseless.
Static and virtual are incompartible concepts.