design-rationale

Why shouldn't C#(or .NET) allow us to put a static/shared method inside an interface? seemingly duplicate from here . but my idea is a bit different one, I just want to put a helper for my plugins(interface) shouldn't C# at least allow this idea? namespace MycComponent { public interface ITaskPlugin : ITaskInfo { string Description { get; } string MenuTree { get; } string MenuCaption { get; } void ShowTask(Form parentForm); void ShowTask(Form parentForm, Dictionary<string, object> pkColumns); ShowTaskNewDelegate ShowTaskNew { set; get; } ShowTaskOpenDelegate ShowTaskOpen { set; get; } // would

I have this code template<int N, bool C = true> struct A; template<int N> struct A<N, !(N % 5)> { /* ... */ }; // should work A<25> a; That is, for numbers N that are divisible by 5 , the compiler should use the partial specialization. But the compiler won't accept that partial specialization, because the Standard requires it to reject such code where a non-type argument of a partial specialization references a parameter and is not simply a parameter (like, A<N, N> would be valid). But what is the reason of doing so? Note that I can simply change my code to a more wordy example and it is valid

I'm pretty sure I already saw this question somewhere (comp.lang.c++? Google doesn't seem to find it there either) but a quick search here doesn't seem to find it so here it is: Why does the std::map operator[] create an object if the key doesn't exist? I don't know but for me this seems counter-intuitive if you compare to most other operator[] (like std::vector) where if you use it you must be sure that the index exists. I'm wondering what's the rationale for implementing this behavior in std::map. Like I said wouldn't it be more intuitive to act more like an index in a vector and crash (well