Home All Groups Group Topic Archive Search About
Author
13 Apr 2007 3:03 AM
Rajesh
Based on my understanding static members do not have access to non-
static members. In the below example static method 'name' accessing
non-static method creating reference. Seems to me it is not holding to
the theory? Pls explain.

Here is an example:
namespace StaticNonStaticMembers
{
    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            person p = new person();
            System.Console.WriteLine(person.name());
            System.Console.WriteLine(p.changename());

        }
    }

    class person
    {
        public string changename()
        {
            return "changed";
        }

        public static string name()
        {
            person p = new person();
            return p.changename();
        }
    }
}

Thanks.

Author
13 Apr 2007 3:29 AM
Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
Rajesh,

    From a static method/property, you can not access the instance members
directly WITHOUT a reference.  In your example, you have a reference to an
instance, and therefore, can call the instance methods on that instance.

    Hope this helps.


--
          - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
          - mvp@spam.guard.caspershouse.com

Show quoteHide quote
"Rajesh" <rajesh.godavar***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176433402.791297.115100@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Based on my understanding static members do not have access to non-
> static members. In the below example static method 'name' accessing
> non-static method creating reference. Seems to me it is not holding to
> the theory? Pls explain.
>
> Here is an example:
> namespace StaticNonStaticMembers
> {
>    class Program
>    {
>        static void Main(string[] args)
>        {
>            person p = new person();
>            System.Console.WriteLine(person.name());
>            System.Console.WriteLine(p.changename());
>
>        }
>    }
>
>    class person
>    {
>        public string changename()
>        {
>            return "changed";
>        }
>
>        public static string name()
>        {
>            person p = new person();
>            return p.changename();
>        }
>    }
> }
>
> Thanks.
>
Are all your drivers up to date? click for free checkup

Author
13 Apr 2007 3:32 AM
Peter Duniho
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:03:22 -0700, Rajesh <rajesh.godavar***@gmail.com> 
wrote:

> Based on my understanding static members do not have access to non-
> static members.

That's not true.  A static member of a class can access non-static 
members, as long as they specify an instance.

> In the below example static method 'name' accessing
> non-static method creating reference.

Yes, the static method "name()" does access the non-static method 
"changename()" of the instance created.  Of course, that doesn't prove 
anything because the method is public and so *any* code can access that.

It would be more interesting for you to show code where a static method of 
the class accesses a protected or private method or field of the same 
class, since that's a scenario in which only the methods within the class 
are allowed to access that member.  You would find that also works, but at 
least it is an interesting example.

> Seems to me it is not holding to the theory? Pls explain.

What theory?

Pete
Author
13 Apr 2007 4:09 AM
Rajesh
Show quote Hide quote
On Apr 12, 8:32 pm, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPe***@nnowslpianmk.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:03:22 -0700, Rajesh <rajesh.godavar***@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
> > Based on my understanding static members do not have access to non-
> > static members.
>
> That's not true.  A static member of a class can access non-static 
> members, as long as they specify an instance.
>
> > In the below example static method 'name' accessing
> > non-static method creating reference.
>
> Yes, the static method "name()" does access the non-static method 
> "changename()" of the instance created.  Of course, that doesn't prove 
> anything because the method is public and so *any* code can access that.
>
> It would be more interesting for you to show code where a static method of 
> the class accesses a protected or private method or field of the same 
> class, since that's a scenario in which only the methods within the class 
> are allowed to access that member.  You would find that also works, but at 
> least it is an interesting example.
>
> > Seems to me it is not holding to the theory? Pls explain.
>
> What theory?
>
> Pete

Agree with you.

Theory meaning "static members do not have access to non-static
members."

But it cleared up .. thanks for your help.
Author
13 Apr 2007 3:37 AM
Bill Butler
"Rajesh" <rajesh.godavar***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176433402.791297.115100@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Based on my understanding static members do not have access to non-
> static members.

That definition is inacurate.
Try
static members do not have access to non static members of the same
class without first creating an instance of the object and accessing the
nonstatic members via the instance.

take a look at this:

using System;
class Foo
  {
  private int x;

  public Foo(int x){this.x = x;}

  static void Main(string[] args)
    {
    Foo foo1 = new Foo(5);
    Foo foo2 = new Foo(10);
    Console.WriteLine(foo1.x);
    Console.WriteLine(foo2.x);
    }
  }

---------------------
prints
5
10

---------------------

Since there is one x for every instance of Foo, you obviously can't
access x without knowing which foo it lives in.

It is not that "they" are attempting to restrict what static method
can/cannot do. It simply does not make sense for a static method to
access a nonstatic member without an instance of the object.

Now you may argue "Hey, what if it is a nonstatic Method? why can't I
access that?"
For instance (added to prior example)
    public void Method1()
        {
        Console.WriteLine("x:{0}",x);
        }

and
    public void Method2()
        {
        Console.WriteLine("Hello from the inside of Foo");
        }

Method1 makes no sense without an instance of Foo because it needs to
know the value of x
Method2 on the other hand knows nothing of the internal state of
Foo...so why can't I call it????
Because you didn't make it static!!!

There is absolutely no reason for Method2 to NOT be static.

Hopefully, my rambling will help clear this up a bit

    Bill
Author
13 Apr 2007 4:00 AM
Rajesh
Show quote Hide quote
On Apr 12, 8:37 pm, "Bill Butler" <qwe***@asdf.com> wrote:
> "Rajesh" <rajesh.godavar***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176433402.791297.115100@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Based on my understanding static members do not have access to non-
> > static members.
>
> That definition is inacurate.
> Try
> static members do not have access to non static members of the same
> class without first creating an instance of the object and accessing the
> nonstatic members via the instance.
>
> take a look at this:
>
> using System;
> class Foo
>   {
>   private int x;
>
>   public Foo(int x){this.x = x;}
>
>   static void Main(string[] args)
>     {
>     Foo foo1 = new Foo(5);
>     Foo foo2 = new Foo(10);
>     Console.WriteLine(foo1.x);
>     Console.WriteLine(foo2.x);
>     }
>   }
>
> ---------------------
> prints
> 5
> 10
>
> ---------------------
>
> Since there is one x for every instance of Foo, you obviously can't
> access x without knowing which foo it lives in.
>
> It is not that "they" are attempting to restrict what static method
> can/cannot do. It simply does not make sense for a static method to
> access a nonstatic member without an instance of the object.
>
> Now you may argue "Hey, what if it is a nonstatic Method? why can't I
> access that?"
> For instance (added to prior example)
>     public void Method1()
>         {
>         Console.WriteLine("x:{0}",x);
>         }
>
> and
>     public void Method2()
>         {
>         Console.WriteLine("Hello from the inside of Foo");
>         }
>
> Method1 makes no sense without an instance of Foo because it needs to
> know the value of x
> Method2 on the other hand knows nothing of the internal state of
> Foo...so why can't I call it????
> Because you didn't make it static!!!
>
> There is absolutely no reason for Method2 to NOT be static.
>
> Hopefully, my rambling will help clear this up a bit
>
>     Bill

Bill,

> Since there is one x for every instance of Foo, you obviously can't
> access x without knowing which foo it lives in.
>
> It is not that "they" are attempting to restrict what static method
> can/cannot do. It simply does not make sense for a static method to
> access a nonstatic member without an instance of the object.

Your point makes perfect sense with above desc... It cleared the
confusion.

Appreciate your help !!!
Author
13 Apr 2007 5:20 AM
Cor Ligthert [MVP]
Rajesh,

There is nothing that has access to a non-static member of a class, simple
because it does not exist as long as it is not instanced from the template
(the non static class). .

Only after that it is instanced as a part of your program, an object in this
case, you can use the members in that object.

A static member (which can be a part of your class) is nothing than a module
part of your program. It exist from the begin to the end and it will be
there from the start to the end of the program occupying the memory where it
is static in. Therefore those static parts will never be constructed by you.

Cor

Show quoteHide quote
"Rajesh" <rajesh.godavar***@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:1176433402.791297.115100@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Based on my understanding static members do not have access to non-
> static members. In the below example static method 'name' accessing
> non-static method creating reference. Seems to me it is not holding to
> the theory? Pls explain.
>
> Here is an example:
> namespace StaticNonStaticMembers
> {
>    class Program
>    {
>        static void Main(string[] args)
>        {
>            person p = new person();
>            System.Console.WriteLine(person.name());
>            System.Console.WriteLine(p.changename());
>
>        }
>    }
>
>    class person
>    {
>        public string changename()
>        {
>            return "changed";
>        }
>
>        public static string name()
>        {
>            person p = new person();
>            return p.changename();
>        }
>    }
> }
>
> Thanks.
>
Author
13 Apr 2007 6:43 AM
Christof Nordiek
"Rajesh" <rajesh.godavar***@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1176433402.791297.115100@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Based on my understanding static members do not have access to non-
> static members.

static and non-static has nothing to do with accessibility.
The point is: non-static members can only be called in the context of an
instance. Inside that member this instance can be accessed by the keyword
"this".
Inside a non-static method, you can call any nonstatic member implicitly on
"this". In static members there is no "this", (because they don't run in the
context of an instance.) So this implicit reference to this is not possible.
But this is not a question of accessibility. You alwys name any instancs e
member explicitly on an instance.

Christof
Author
18 Apr 2007 11:48 AM
Ravichandran J.V.
As long as you have an instance of the class, whose members you are
calling, you can access instance members from a static member. In your
example, you have a Person instance which is being used to call the
instance member.

with regards,


J.V.Ravichandran
- http://www.geocities.com/
  jvravichandran
- Or, just search on "J.V.Ravichandran"
  at http://www.Google.com

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***

Bookmark and Share