让我们有两个成员相等的签名，但一个是静态的，另一个 - 是不是：

 类Foo
{
    公共无效测试（）{Console.WriteLine（实例）; }

    公共静态无效测试（）{Console.WriteLine（静态）; }
}
 

但这样的code生成带来了一个编译器错误：

输入富已经定义了一个名为测试具有相同的参数类型的成员

但是，为什么？

让我们编译的成功，则：

Foo.Test（）应该输出静

新富（）测试（）; 应该输出实例

无法调用静态成员，而不是实例之一，因为在这种情况下，会出现另一种更合理的编译器错误：

的成员Foo.Test（）不能用一个实例参考访问;与类型名称限定它，而不是

怎么样，从一个实例方法：

 测试（）;
 

什么调用？你可能想给实例方法优先在静态方法，但都将适用。

我会说，即使它被允许，这将是一个根本的坏主意，从一个可读性点做到这一点...例如，如果你改变了一个方法，名为测试从静态的到实例，它会以一种微妙的方式改变的意思。

换句话说，我有这种被禁止的没有问题的：）

Let we have two members equal by signature, but one is static and another - is not:

class Foo
{
    public void Test() { Console.WriteLine("instance"); }

    public static void Test() { Console.WriteLine("static"); }
}

but such code generate brings a compiler error:

Type 'Foo' already defines a member called 'Test' with the same parameter types

But why?

Let we compiled that successfully, then:

Foo.Test() should output "static"

new Foo().Test();should output "instance"

Can't call the static member instead of instance one because in this case another, more reasonable compiler error will occur:

Member 'Foo.Test()' cannot be accessed with an instance reference; qualify it with a type name instead

What about, from an instance method:

Test();

What would that call? You'd probably want to give the instance method "priority" over the static method, but both would be applicable.

I would say that even if it were allowed, it would be a fundamentally bad idea to do this from a readability point of view... for example, if you changed a method which called Test from being static to instance, it would change the meaning in a subtle way.

In other words, I have no problem with this being prohibited :)