Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The add1 method was declared non static on purpose, to illustrate static type checking.

No it wasn't.

Even if the type checker passed the compilation would fail because it's trying to call a non static method from a static method

Oh, you're right, it's unintended. I didn't see the author tried to trigger a type-check error with an argument "a" of the wrong type.

However, failing compilation because you're calling a non-static method from a static context is also a kind of static checking, so the author's example still works, just in unintented ways.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact