Basically, nothing in a companion object can be abstract or open (and thus be overridden), and there’s no way to require the implementations’ companion objects to have a method or to define/require a constructor in an interface. A possible solution for you is to separate these two functions into two interfaces: interface Serializable<ToType> { fun … Read more
You’re basically referring to the section §7.3.1.1/2 from the C++03 Standard, The use of the static keyword is deprecated when declaring objects in a namespace scope; the unnamed-namespace provides a superior alternative. Note that this paragraph was already removed in C++11. static functions are per standard no longer deprecated! Nonetheless, unnamed namespace‘s are superior to … Read more
No. A function declaration (prototype or even the definition) can omit the keyword static if it comes after another declaration of the same function with static. If there is one static declaration of a function, its first declaration has to be static. It is defined in ISO/IEC 9899:1999, 6.7.1: If the declaration of a file … Read more
Section 11.5 “The C++ Programming Language” by Bjarne Stroustrup states that ordinary member functions get 3 things: access to internals of class are in the scope of the class must be invoked on an instance friends get only 1. static functions get 1 and 2.
You’re basically referring to the section §7.3.1.1/2 from the C++03 Standard, The use of the static keyword is deprecated when declaring objects in a namespace scope; the unnamed-namespace provides a superior alternative. Note that this paragraph was already removed in C++11. static functions are per standard no longer deprecated! Nonetheless, unnamed namespace‘s are superior to … Read more
I’m guessing you’ve done something like: class Foo { static void Bar(); }; … static void Foo::Bar() { … } The “static void Foo::Bar” is incorrect. You don’t need the second “static“.