Develop Reference

Is there a way to hide/show certain methods when instantiating an object?

This question came to mind while I was writing a class that iterates over a list, with methods next() and previous() that will continuously loop (e.g. if at the last object, return it, and then reset index to 0)
In the constructor I was pondering adding a boolean variable, which if true would just act like a regular iterator with only next() methods and no looping. In this case, having the method previous() would make no sense. So I'm curious, is it possible to hide the previous() method in this case. Is it possible to achieve this somehow in Java or C#?.
What about other languages?

C#
It is possible by making the two methods part of two different interfaces, and casting the object to one of the two interfaces. For example:
interface ILoopingIterator
{
void Next();
void Previous();
}
interface INonLoopingIterator
{
void Next();
}
class PlaysItBothWays : ILoopingIterator, INonLoopingIterator
{
void ILoopingIterator.Next()
{
this.NextCore();
}
void ILoopingIterator.Previous()
{
// since this code will never be shared anyway, put it here
}
void INonLoopingIterator.Next()
{
this.NextCore();
}
private void NextCore()
{
// do stuff here; this method only exists so that code can be shared
}
}
Note that I have made the class implement both interfaces explicitly; this way, users of instances are forced to select which "mode" they want to use the class in. You could implement only one interface explicitly instead (providing a "default" mode that can be changed).
and now:
var looping = (ILoopingIterator) new PlaysItBothWays(); // selects mode A
var nonLooping = (INonLoopingIterator) new PlaysItBothWays(); // selects mode B
Of course this does not stop anyone from casting the instance to the "other" interface if they want to, but if the programmer wants to subvert their own code they can also use reflection which allows much more than that.
Java
In Java, the above is not possible. You can come close by having the class expose methods that return instances of one of the two interfaces, and using the returned value. Of course then the object is really a factory and not a service provider, so that's feels like cheating on the problem.
class PlaysItBothWays
{
public ILoopingIterator asLooping() { return /* something */ }
public INonLoopingIterator asNonLooping() { return /* something else */ }
}

Rather than passing a boolean to a constructor, you should simply use inheritance.
Suppose you have a base iterator that supports only next(). If that's the only functionality you need, instantiate it.
To provide more functionality, inherit from this base iterator, make a class called TwoWayIterator or something like that, and provide a previous() method.
Both of these classes will share a common super class, so you can treat them as one, and you can hide the previous() method by treating an instance as its base class.

It is not possible to hide a method like that in a statically typed language. The best you can do is implement the method to throw an exception (or equivalent) if the method is called.
There are tricks that you can do to make it appear like the methods are not there. For instance, having the class implement two interfaces, and using different factory methods to create them. However, they don't work if the constructor is used directly, or if you want the choice to be determined by the value of a constructor or factory method parameter.

Not in Java. You can't "Hide" methods at runtime. I'd suggest you to create Two interfaces
, one with the next method and the other one extending the first one and adding the "previous" method. Then, you can have 2 factories methods to create an instance of one of these classes.
Please take a look to the Java "Iterator" class
interface Iterator<T> {
T next();
}
interface LoopingIterator<T> extends Iterator<T>{
T previous();
}
Then you can cast them. Similar to the previous C# answer

You can't hide class members at run time (well, not in C# anyway - not sure about Java). If you so worried about Previous() method being used in the context where it is not doing anything useful, then simply have it throw InvalidOperationException in that case.
It is also worth noting that .NET already has standard "iterator" interface. It is called IEnumerable (and generic version IEnumerable<T>) and is forward-only.

Why do I need IEnumerator.Current in a class implementing IEnumerator<T>?

I have a class that implements IEnumerator<string>. See below:
public class MyClass : IEnumerator<string>
{
public bool MoveNext()
{
//....
}
//Implement other required methods....
//Confusion lies below:
public string Current { get { return this.CurrentLine; } }
//Why do I need to implement IEnumerator.Current?! In my tests, it's not even called during my iteration
object IEnumerator.Current { get { throw new NotImplementedException(); } }
}
Besides the fact that .Current property exists on both the IEnumerator<T> interface and the IEnumerator interface (which IEnumerator<T> inherits), what's the point of implementing it? As seen above it's not even called.

IEnumerator<T> implements IEnumerator, so at the most basic level you have to fulfill the contract.
Specifically as to why - what happens if someone does this:
((IEnumerator)yourInstance).Current
They (usually) should expect to get a loosely-typed copy of the same value/reference returned from IEnumerator<T>'s implementation. So in most cases, just return this.Current and don't worry about it :)
(FYI - returning this.Current is also good practice because it follows DRY and SRP - let the strongly-typed version of Current deal with the implementation details of what Current actually is.)

The reason is that IEnumerator<T> inherits IEnumerator so when you inherit from IEnumerator<T> you implicitly also inherit from IEnumerator. If you advertise an interface you should also provide an implementation for that interface even if you never intend to use it.

The compiler requires you to implement all virtuals because it cannot possibly know which ones will be called when some unanticipated assembly loads your assembly at some point in the unknown future. By inheriting from an interface, you are "signing a contract" which promises that you will implement all its members. The compiler holds you to that agreement so that other assemblies will be able to rely on it.
The purpose of the interface feature is to enable your class to tell any other assembly, any where, any time, "this is what you can ask me to do". If you want to advertise a lesser capability, define a new interface that provides only the partial functionality you want, and implement that instead.
Of course, all of this is industrial-strength stuff. It's more than you need for your code right now. But C# is meant to be useful for doing serious stuff, not just toys.
As for the two different, near-identical overrides: You have to overrides both Current properties because they are essentially different: One is a generic returning T; the other is non-generic returning Object. You can always treat a String reference as a reference to Object, but that doesn't go both ways. And then what about value types? T is not constrained to be a class. Sure, the compiler could hypothetically figure all this out for you and let you off the hook in cases where the two are fungible, but it doesn't, and I'm not convinced it should. If you want C++, you know where to find it.

Preferred style (delegates over abstract Classes or interfaces)

I have a utility class library I am writing. A have written a factory class that is generic enough that with a few delegates passed in from the caller it can be reused in many different situations. However, one of my colleagues suggested that I use an abstract class or an interface so it is more explicit what functions needed to be overridden. In the model I have created to use the library you would then need to override 2 classes instead of just one. What criteria determines when it is appropriate to use delegate functions or interfaces.
Using a delegate pattern.
Class A
{
Func<string , ReultClass> fun1 {get;set;}
FactoryObj CreateObj()
{
return fun1("")
}
}
Using an interface pattern
Class B
{
InterfaceObj{get;set;}
FactoryObj CreateObj()
{
return InterfaceObj.fun1("")
}
}

If the design is such that the class depends on another class (even a simple class), I would recommend the interface approach, since the object does have to depend on outside code:
interface IA
{
ResultClass Fun1(string arg);
}
In this case, you can still use delegates; I usually write my "anonymous" classes (as Microsoft calls them) with explicit interface implementations, so the name of the delegate property is the same as the name of the interface method it implements:
class AnonymousA : IA
{
Func<string, ResultClass> Fun1 { get; set; }
ResultClass IA.Fun1(string arg) { return this.Fun1(arg); }
}
If there are generics involved (e.g., IA<ResultClass> and the corresponding AnonymousA<ResultClass>), then it's useful to define a factory class, just to clean up the creation syntax:
static class Anonymous
{
public static IA<ResultClass> A<ResultClass>(Func<string, ResultClass> fun1)
{ return new AnonymousA<ResultClass> { Fun1 = fun1 }
}

I would think you would want to change the signature of the method. Instead of making the delegate a property on your class, make that a parameter you need to pass in. Then, you can't even invoke your CreateObj method without passing in the required data, and the signature itself tells you what you need to pass for the method call to be successful.

does/should the factory know about the various 'concrete' versions? Are there a fixed, relatively low number of specific concrete versions? If yes for either, IMHO the abstract base is a good approach. If the caller should be able to pass in 'arbitrary' code, you could either pass in delegates, or if multiple callers may want to handle/interpret the same data, expose it as events from the base and let the various callers hook up and do their interpretation.
Unfortunately, as SLaks mentions, it kind of depends on the specific situation - it's hard to make any kind of blanket statements - even the above one is likely to be a bad idea in some situations :)

Using wrapper classes, it's possible to do anything that can be done with delegates using interfaces, and vice versa. To determine which is appropriate for a given situation, examine the common usage patterns.
For example, suppose one wants to construct at run-time a list of actions that will need to be performed when a certain object is disposed. The most common action will be to call Dispose on an object of type IDisposable, but in some cases it may be necessary to do something else (e.g. unsubscribe an event handler).
One approach would be to maintain a list of MethodInvoker delegates and invoke each in turn(*). If cleanup will require calling Dispose on an object, make a new delegate for thatObject.Dispose() and add it to the list. An alternative approach would be to keep a list of IDisposable objects, and handle other actions by creating a class called InvokeOnDispose which holds a MethodInvoker, and invokes it when Dispose is called.
The former approach would require creating a new delegate for each cleanup action, whether it simply involved calling Dispose on something, or did something else. The latter approach would not require creating any new object instances when adding an IDisposable object to the list, but adding some other action would require creating an InvokeOnDispose object in addition to a delegate.
(*) One could simply use a MulticastDelegate rather than a list of delegates, but in some circumstances (like object cleanup) an exception thrown from one cleanup operation should probably not disrupt the operation of others. While one could assemble the collection of cleanup operations using a MulticastDelegate and then use GetInvocationList to run each within a separate 'try-catch' block, it would be easier and more efficient to simply use a list of delegates from the get-go.

Understanding Interfaces

I am still having trouble understanding what interfaces are good for. I read a few tutorials and I still don't know what they really are for other then "they make your classes keep promises" and "they help with multiple inheritance".
Thats about it. I still don't know when I would even use an interface in a real work example or even when to identify when to use it.
From my limited knowledge of interfaces they can help because if something implements it then you can just pass the interface in allowing to pass in like different classes without worrying about it not being the right parameter.
But I never know what the real point of this since they usually stop short at this point from showing what the code would do after it passes the interface and if they sort of do it it seems like they don't do anything useful that I could look at and go "wow they would help in a real world example".
So what I guess I am saying is I am trying to find a real world example where I can see interfaces in action.
I also don't understand that you can do like a reference to an object like this:
ICalculator myInterface = new JustSomeClass();
So now if I would go myInterface dot and intellisense would pull up I would only see the interface methods and not the other methods in JustSomeClass. So I don't see a point to this yet.
Also I started to do unit testing where they seem to love to use interfaces but I still don't understand why.
Like for instance this example:
public AuthenticationController(IFormsAuthentication formsAuth)
{
FormsAuth = formsAuth ?? new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
}
public class FormsAuthenticationWrapper : IFormsAuthentication
{
public void SetAuthCookie(string userName, bool createPersistentCookie)
{
FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(userName, createPersistentCookie);
}
public void SignOut()
{
FormsAuthentication.SignOut();
}
}
public IFormsAuthentication FormsAuth
{
get;
set;
}
Like why bother making this interface? Why not just make FormsAuthenticationWrapper with the methods in it and call it a day? Why First make an interface then have the Wrapper implement the interface and then finally write the methods?
Then I don't get what the statement is really saying.
Like I now know that the statement is saying this
FormsAuth = formsAuth ?? new FormsAuthenticationWrapper();
if formsAuth is null then make a new FormsAuthenticationWrapper and then assign it to the property that is an Interface.
I guess it goes back to the whole point of why the reference thing. Especially in this case since all the methods are exactly the same. The Wrapper does not have any new methods that the interface does not have and I am not sure but when you do this the methods are filled right(ie they have a body) they don't get converted to stubs because that would really seem pointless to me(it it would be converted back to an interface).
Then in the testing file they have:
var formsAuthenticationMock = new Mock<AuthenticationController.IFormsAuthentication>();
So they just pass in the FormsAuthentication what I am guessing makes all the fake stubs. I am guessing the wrapper class is used when the program is actually running since it has real methods that do something(like sign a person out).
But looking at new Mock(from moq) it accepts a class or an interface. Why not just again made the wrapper class put those methods in and then in the new Mock call that?
Would that not just make the stubs for you?

Ok, I had a hard time understanding too at first, so don't worry about it.
Think about this, if you have a class, that lets say is a video game character.
public class Character
{
}
Now say I want to have the Character have a weapon. I could use an interface to determin the methods required by a weapon:
interface IWeapon
{
public Use();
}
So lets give the Character a weapon:
public class Character
{
IWeapon weapon;
public void GiveWeapon(IWeapon weapon)
{
this.weapon = weapon;
}
public void UseWeapon()
{
weapon.Use();
}
}
Now we can create weapons that use the IWeapon interface and we can give them to any character class and that class can use the item.
public class Gun : IWeapon
{
public void Use()
{
Console.Writeline("Weapon Fired");
}
}
Then you can stick it together:
Character bob = new character();
Gun pistol = new Gun();
bob.GiveWeapon(pistol);
bob.UseWeapon();
Now this is a general example, but it gives a lot of power. You can read about this more if you look up the Strategy Pattern.

Interfaces define contracts.
In the example you provide, the ?? operator just provides a default value if you pass null to the constructor and doesn't really have anything to do with interfaces.
What is more relevant is that you might use an actual FormsAuthenticationWrapper object, but you can also implement your own IFormsAuthentication type that has nothing to do with the wrapper class at all. The interface tells you what methods and properties you need to implement to fulfill the contract, and allows the compiler to verify that your object really does honor that contract (to some extent - it's simple to honor a contract in name, but not in spirit), and so you don't have to use the pre-built FormsAuthenticationWrapper if you don't want to. You can build a different class that works completely differently but still honors the required contract.
In this respect interfaces are much like normal inheritance, with one important difference. In C# a class can only inherit from one type but can implement many interfaces. So interfaces allow you to fulfill multiple contracts in one class. An object can be an IFormsAuthentication object and also be something else, like IEnumerable.
Interfaces are even more useful when you look at it from the other direction: they allow you to treat many different types as if they were all the same. A good example of this is with the various collections classes. Take this code sample:
void OutputValues(string[] values)
{
foreach (string value in values)
{
Console.Writeline(value);
}
}
This accepts an array and outputs it to the console. Now apply this simple change to use an interface:
void OutputValues(IEnumerable<string> values)
{
foreach (string value in values)
{
Console.Writeline(value);
}
}
This code still takes an array and outputs it to the console. But it also takes a List<string> or anything else you care to give it that implements IEnumerable<string>. So we've taken an interface and used it to make a simple block of code much more powerful.
Another good example is the ASP.Net membership provider. You tell ASP.Net that you honor the membership contract by implementing the required interfaces. Now you can easily customize the built-in ASP.Net authentication to use any source, and all thanks to interfaces. The data providers in the System.Data namespace work in a similar fashion.
One final note: when I see an interface with a "default" wrapper implementation like that, I consider it a bit of an anit-pattern, or at least a code smell. It indicates to me that maybe the interface is too complicated, and you either need to split it apart or consider using some combination of composition + events + delegates rather than derivation to accomplish the same thing.

Perhaps the best way to get a good understanding of interfaces is to use an example from the .NET framework.
Consider the following function:
void printValues(IEnumerable sequence)
{
foreach (var value in sequence)
Console.WriteLine(value);
}
Now I could have written this function to accept a List<T>, object[], or any other type of concrete sequence. But since I have written this function to accept a parameter of type IEnumerable that means that I can pass any concrete type into this function that implements the IEnumerable interface.
The reason this is desirable is that by using the interface type your function is more flexible than it would otherwise be. Also you are increasing the utility of this function as many different callers will be able to make use of it without requiring modification.
By using an interface type you are able to declare the type of your parameter as a contract of what you need from whatever concrete type is passed in. In my example I don't care what type you pass me, I just care that I can iterate it.

All of the answers here have been helpful and I doubt I can add anything new to the mix but in reading the answers here, two of the concepts mentioned in two different answers really meshed well in my head so I will compose my understanding here in the hopes that it might help you.
A class has methods and properties and each of the methods and properties of a class has a signature and a body
public int Add(int x, int y)
{
return x + y;
}
The signature of the Add method is everything before the first curly brace character
public int Add(int x, int y)
The purpose of the method signature is to assign a name to a method and also to describe it's protection level (public, protected, internal, private and / or virtual) which defines where a method can be accessed from in code
The signature also defines the type of the value returned by the method, the Add method above returns an int, and the arguments a method expects to have passed to it by callers
Methods are generally considered to be something an object can do, the example above implies that the class the method is defined in works with numbers
The method body describes precisly (in code) how it is that an object performs the action described by the method name. In the example above the add method works by applying the addition operator to it's parameters and returing the result.
One of the primary differences between an interface and a class in terms of language syntax is that an interface can only define the signature of a methd, never the method body.
Put another way, an interface can describe in a the actions (methods) of a class, but it must never describe how an action is to be performed.
Now that you hopefully have a better understanding of what an interface is, we can move on to the second and third parts of your question when, and why would we use an interface in a real program.
One of the main times interfaces are used in a program is when one wants to perform an action, without wanting to know, or be tied to the specifics of how those actions are performed.
That is a very abstract concept to grapsp so perhaps an example might help to firm things up in your mind
Imagine you are the author of a very popular web browser that millions of people use every day and you have thousands of feature requests from people, some big, some little, some good and some like "bring back <maquee> and <blink> support".
Because you only have a relitivly small number of developers, and an even smaller number of hours in the day, you can't possibly implement every requested feature yourself, but you still want to satisfy your customers
So you decide to allow users to develop their own plugins, so they can <blink 'till the cows come home.
To implement this you might come up with a plugin class that looks like:
public class Plugin
{
public void Run (PluginHost browser)
{
//do stuff here....
}
}
But how could you reasonably implement that method? You can't possibly know precisly how every poossible future plugin is going to work
One possible way around this is to define Plugin as an interface and have the browser refer to each plugin using that, like this:
public interface IPlugin
{
void Run(PluginHost browser);
}
public class PluginHost
{
public void RunPlugins (IPlugin[] plugins)
{
foreach plugin in plugins
{
plugin.Run(this);
}
}
}
Note that as discussed earlier the IPlugin interface describes the Run method but does not specify how Run does it's job because this is specific to each plugin, we don't want the plugin host concerned with the specifics of each individual plugin.
To demonstrate the "can-be-a" aspect of the relationship between a class and an interface I will write a plugin for the plugin host below that implements the <blink> tag.
public class BlinkPlugin: IPlugin
{
private void MakeTextBlink(string text)
{
//code to make text blink.
}
public void Run(PluginHost browser)
{
MakeTextBlink(browser.CurrentPage.ParsedHtml);
}
}
From this perspective you can see that the plugin is defined in a class named BlinkPlugin but because it also implements the IPlugin interface it can also be refered to as an IPlugin object,as the PluginHost class above does, because it doesn't know or care what type the class actually is, just that it can be an IPlugin
I hope this has helped, I really didnt intend it to be quite this long.

I'll give you an example below but let me start with one of your statements. "I don't know how to identify when to use one". to put it on edge. You don't need to identify when to use it but when not to use it. Any parameter (at least to public methods), any (public) property (and personally I would actually extend the list to and anything else) should be declared as something of an interface not a specific class. The only time I would ever declare something of a specific type would be when there was no suitable interface.
I'd go
IEnumerable<T> sequence;
when ever I can and hardly ever (the only case I can think off is if I really needed the ForEach method)
List<T> sequence;
and now an example. Let's say you are building a sytem that can compare prices on cars and computers. Each is displayed in a list.
The car prices are datamined from a set of websites and the computer prices from a set of services.
a solution could be:
create one web page, say with a datagrid and Dependency Injection of a IDataRetriever
(where IDataRetriver is some interface making data fetching available with out you having to know where the data came from (DB,XML,web services or ...) or how they were fetched (data mined, SQL Quering in house data or read from file).
Since the two scenarios we have have nothing but the usage in common a super class will make little sense. but the page using our two classes (one for cars and one for computers) needs to perform the exact same operations in both cases to make that possible we need to tell the page (compiler) which operations are possible. We do that by means of an interface and then the two classes implement that interfcae.
using dependency injection has nothing to do with when or how to use interfaces but the reason why I included it is another common scenario where interfaces makes you life easier. Testing. if you use injection and interfaces you can easily substitute a production class for a testing class when testing. (This again could be to switch data stores or to enforce an error that might be very hard to produce in release code, say a race condition)

We use interfaces (or abstract base classes) to allow polymorphism, which is a very central concept in object-oriented programming. It allows us to compose behavior in very flexible ways. If you haven't already, you should read Design Patterns - it contains numerous examples of using interfaces.
In relation to Test Doubles (such as Mock objects), we use interfaces to be able to remove functionality that we currently don't want to test, or that can't work from within a unit testing framework.
Particularly when working with web development, a lot of the services that we rely on (such as the HTTP Context) isn't available when the code executes outside of the web context, but if we hide that functionality behind an interface, we can replace it with something else during testing.

The way I understood it was:
Derivation is 'is-a' relationship e.g., A Dog is an Animal, A Cow is an Animal but an interface is never derived, it is implemented.
So, interface is a 'can-be' relationship e.g., A Dog can be a Spy Dog, A Dog can be a Circus Dog etc. But to achieve this, a dog has to learn some specific things. Which in OO terminology means that your class has to able to do some specific things (contract as they call it) if it implements an interface. e.g., if your class implements IEnumerable, it clearly means that your class has (must have) such a functionality that it's objects can be Enumerated.
So, in essence, through Interface Implementation a Class exposes a functionality to its users that it can do something and it is NOT inheritance.

With almost everything written about interfaces, let me have a shot.
In simple terms, interface is something which will relate two or more , otherwise, non related classes.
Interfaces define contract which ensures that any two or more classes, even if not completely related, happens to implement a common interface, will contain a common set of operations.
Combined with the support of polymorphism , one can use interfaces to write cleaner and dynamic code.
eg.
Interface livingBeings
-- speak() // says anybody who IS a livingBeing need to define how they speak
class dog implements livingBeings
--speak(){bark;} // implementation of speak as a dog
class bird implements livingBeings
--speak(){chirp;}// implementation of speak as a bird

ICalculator myInterface = new JustSomeClass();
JustSomeClass myObject = (JustSomeClass) myInterface;
Now you have both "interfaces" to work with on the object.
I am pretty new to this too, but I like to think of interfaces as buttons on a remote control. When using the ICalculator interface, you only have access to the buttons (functionality) intended by the interface designer. When using the JustSomeClass object reference, you have another set of buttons. But they both point to the same object.
There are many reasons to do this. The one that has been most useful to me is communication between co-workers. If they can agree on an interface (buttons which will be pushed), then one developer can work on implementing the button's functionality and another can write code that uses the buttons.
Hope this helps.

Why Doesn't C# Allow Static Methods to Implement an Interface?

Why was C# designed this way?
As I understand it, an interface only describes behaviour, and serves the purpose of describing a contractual obligation for classes implementing the interface that certain behaviour is implemented.
If classes wish to implement that behavour in a shared method, why shouldn't they?
Here is an example of what I have in mind:
// These items will be displayed in a list on the screen.
public interface IListItem {
string ScreenName();
...
}
public class Animal: IListItem {
// All animals will be called "Animal".
public static string ScreenName() {
return "Animal";
}
....
}
public class Person: IListItem {
private string name;
// All persons will be called by their individual names.
public string ScreenName() {
return name;
}
....
}

Assuming you are asking why you can't do this:
public interface IFoo {
void Bar();
}
public class Foo: IFoo {
public static void Bar() {}
}
This doesn't make sense to me, semantically. Methods specified on an interface should be there to specify the contract for interacting with an object. Static methods do not allow you to interact with an object - if you find yourself in the position where your implementation could be made static, you may need to ask yourself if that method really belongs in the interface.
To implement your example, I would give Animal a const property, which would still allow it to be accessed from a static context, and return that value in the implementation.
public class Animal: IListItem {
/* Can be tough to come up with a different, yet meaningful name!
* A different casing convention, like Java has, would help here.
*/
public const string AnimalScreenName = "Animal";
public string ScreenName(){ return AnimalScreenName; }
}
For a more complicated situation, you could always declare another static method and delegate to that. In trying come up with an example, I couldn't think of any reason you would do something non-trivial in both a static and instance context, so I'll spare you a FooBar blob, and take it as an indication that it might not be a good idea.

My (simplified) technical reason is that static methods are not in the vtable, and the call site is chosen at compile time. It's the same reason you can't have override or virtual static members. For more details, you'd need a CS grad or compiler wonk - of which I'm neither.
For the political reason, I'll quote Eric Lippert (who is a compiler wonk, and holds a Bachelor of Mathematics, Computer science and Applied Mathematics from University of Waterloo (source: LinkedIn):
...the core design principle of static methods, the principle that gives them their name...[is]...it can always be determined exactly, at compile time, what method will be called. That is, the method can be resolved solely by static analysis of the code.
Note that Lippert does leave room for a so-called type method:
That is, a method associated with a type (like a static), which does not take a non-nullable “this” argument (unlike an instance or virtual), but one where the method called would depend on the constructed type of T (unlike a static, which must be determinable at compile time).
but is yet to be convinced of its usefulness.

Most answers here seem to miss the whole point. Polymorphism can be used not only between instances, but also between types. This is often needed, when we use generics.
Suppose we have type parameter in generic method and we need to do some operation with it. We dont want to instantinate, because we are unaware of the constructors.
For example:
Repository GetRepository<T>()
{
//need to call T.IsQueryable, but can't!!!
//need to call T.RowCount
//need to call T.DoSomeStaticMath(int param)
}
...
var r = GetRepository<Customer>()
Unfortunately, I can come up only with "ugly" alternatives:
Use reflection
Ugly and beats the idea of interfaces and polymorphism.
Create completely separate factory class
This might greatly increase the complexity of the code. For example, if we are trying to model domain objects, each object would need another repository class.
Instantiate and then call the desired interface method
This can be hard to implement even if we control the source for the classes, used as generic parameters. The reason is that, for example we might need the instances to be only in well-known, "connected to DB" state.
Example:
public class Customer
{
//create new customer
public Customer(Transaction t) { ... }
//open existing customer
public Customer(Transaction t, int id) { ... }
void SomeOtherMethod()
{
//do work...
}
}
in order to use instantination for solving the static interface problem we need to do the following thing:
public class Customer: IDoSomeStaticMath
{
//create new customer
public Customer(Transaction t) { ... }
//open existing customer
public Customer(Transaction t, int id) { ... }
//dummy instance
public Customer() { IsDummy = true; }
int DoSomeStaticMath(int a) { }
void SomeOtherMethod()
{
if(!IsDummy)
{
//do work...
}
}
}
This is obviously ugly and also unnecessary complicates the code for all other methods. Obviously, not an elegant solution either!

I know it's an old question, but it's interesting. The example isn't the best. I think it would be much clearer if you showed a usage case:
string DoSomething<T>() where T:ISomeFunction
{
if (T.someFunction())
...
}
Merely being able to have static methods implement an interface would not achieve what you want; what would be needed would be to have static members as part of an interface. I can certainly imagine many usage cases for that, especially when it comes to being able to create things. Two approaches I could offer which might be helpful:
Create a static generic class whose type parameter will be the type you'd be passing to DoSomething above. Each variation of this class will have one or more static members holding stuff related to that type. This information could supplied either by having each class of interest call a "register information" routine, or by using Reflection to get the information when the class variation's static constructor is run. I believe the latter approach is used by things like Comparer<T>.Default().
For each class T of interest, define a class or struct which implements IGetWhateverClassInfo<T> and satisfies a "new" constraint. The class won't actually contain any fields, but will have a static property which returns a static field with the type information. Pass the type of that class or struct to the generic routine in question, which will be able to create an instance and use it to get information about the other class. If you use a class for this purpose, you should probably define a static generic class as indicated above, to avoid having to construct a new descriptor-object instance each time. If you use a struct, instantiation cost should be nil, but every different struct type would require a different expansion of the DoSomething routine.
None of these approaches is really appealing. On the other hand, I would expect that if the mechanisms existed in CLR to provide this sort of functionality cleanly, .net would allow one to specify parameterized "new" constraints (since knowing if a class has a constructor with a particular signature would seem to be comparable in difficulty to knowing if it has a static method with a particular signature).

Short-sightedness, I'd guess.
When originally designed, interfaces were intended only to be used with instances of class
IMyInterface val = GetObjectImplementingIMyInterface();
val.SomeThingDefinedinInterface();
It was only with the introduction of interfaces as constraints for generics did adding a static method to an interface have a practical use.
(responding to comment:) I believe changing it now would require a change to the CLR, which would lead to incompatibilities with existing assemblies.

To the extent that interfaces represent "contracts", it seems quiet reasonable for static classes to implement interfaces.
The above arguments all seem to miss this point about contracts.

Interfaces specify behavior of an object.
Static methods do not specify a behavior of an object, but behavior that affects an object in some way.

Because the purpose of an interface is to allow polymorphism, being able to pass an instance of any number of defined classes that have all been defined to implement the defined interface... guaranteeing that within your polymorphic call, the code will be able to find the method you are calling. it makes no sense to allow a static method to implement the interface,
How would you call it??
public interface MyInterface { void MyMethod(); }
public class MyClass: MyInterface
{
public static void MyMethod() { //Do Something; }
}
// inside of some other class ...
// How would you call the method on the interface ???
MyClass.MyMethod(); // this calls the method normally
// not through the interface...
// This next fails you can't cast a classname to a different type...
// Only instances can be Cast to a different type...
MyInterface myItf = MyClass as MyInterface;

Actually, it does.
As of Mid-2022, the current version of C# has full support for so-called static abstract members:
interface INumber<T>
{
static abstract T Zero { get; }
}
struct Fraction : INumber<Fraction>
{
public static Fraction Zero { get; } = new Fraction();
public long Numerator;
public ulong Denominator;
....
}
Please note that depending on your version of Visual Studio and your installed .NET SDK, you'll either have to update at least one of them (or maybe both), or that you'll have to enable preview features (see Use preview features & preview language in Visual Studio).
See more:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/whats-new/tutorials/static-virtual-interface-members
https://blog.ndepend.com/c-11-static-abstract-members/
https://khalidabuhakmeh.com/static-abstract-members-in-csharp-10-interfaces#:~:text=Static%20abstract%20members%20allow%20each,like%20any%20other%20interface%20definition.

Regarding static methods used in non-generic contexts I agree that it doesn't make much sense to allow them in interfaces, since you wouldn't be able to call them if you had a reference to the interface anyway. However there is a fundamental hole in the language design created by using interfaces NOT in a polymorphic context, but in a generic one. In this case the interface is not an interface at all but rather a constraint. Because C# has no concept of a constraint outside of an interface it is missing substantial functionality. Case in point:
T SumElements<T>(T initVal, T[] values)
{
foreach (var v in values)
{
initVal += v;
}
}
Here there is no polymorphism, the generic uses the actual type of the object and calls the += operator, but this fails since it can't say for sure that that operator exists. The simple solution is to specify it in the constraint; the simple solution is impossible because operators are static and static methods can't be in an interface and (here is the problem) constraints are represented as interfaces.
What C# needs is a real constraint type, all interfaces would also be constraints, but not all constraints would be interfaces then you could do this:
constraint CHasPlusEquals
{
static CHasPlusEquals operator + (CHasPlusEquals a, CHasPlusEquals b);
}
T SumElements<T>(T initVal, T[] values) where T : CHasPlusEquals
{
foreach (var v in values)
{
initVal += v;
}
}
There has been lots of talk already about making an IArithmetic for all numeric types to implement, but there is concern about efficiency, since a constraint is not a polymorphic construct, making a CArithmetic constraint would solve that problem.

Because interfaces are in inheritance structure, and static methods don't inherit well.

What you seem to want would allow for a static method to be called via both the Type or any instance of that type. This would at very least result in ambiguity which is not a desirable trait.
There would be endless debates about whether it mattered, which is best practice and whether there are performance issues doing it one way or another. By simply not supporting it C# saves us having to worry about it.
Its also likely that a compilier that conformed to this desire would lose some optimisations that may come with a more strict separation between instance and static methods.

You can think of the static methods and non-static methods of a class as being different interfaces. When called, static methods resolve to the singleton static class object, and non-static methods resolve to the instance of the class you deal with. So, if you use static and non-static methods in an interface, you'd effectively be declaring two interfaces when really we want interfaces to be used to access one cohesive thing.

To give an example where I am missing either static implementation of interface methods or what Mark Brackett introduced as the "so-called type method":
When reading from a database storage, we have a generic DataTable class that handles reading from a table of any structure. All table specific information is put in one class per table that also holds data for one row from the DB and which must implement an IDataRow interface. Included in the IDataRow is a description of the structure of the table to read from the database. The DataTable must ask for the datastructure from the IDataRow before reading from the DB. Currently this looks like:
interface IDataRow {
string GetDataSTructre(); // How to read data from the DB
void Read(IDBDataRow); // How to populate this datarow from DB data
}
public class DataTable<T> : List<T> where T : IDataRow {
public string GetDataStructure()
// Desired: Static or Type method:
// return (T.GetDataStructure());
// Required: Instantiate a new class:
return (new T().GetDataStructure());
}
}
The GetDataStructure is only required once for each table to read, the overhead for instantiating one more instance is minimal. However, it would be nice in this case here.

FYI: You could get a similar behavior to what you want by creating extension methods for the interface. The extension method would be a shared, non overridable static behavior. However, unfortunately, this static method would not be part of the contract.

Interfaces are abstract sets of defined available functionality.
Whether or not a method in that interface behaves as static or not is an implementation detail that should be hidden behind the interface. It would be wrong to define an interface method as static because you would be unnecessarily forcing the method to be implemented in a certain way.
If methods were defined as static, the class implementing the interface wouldn't be as encapsulated as it could be. Encapsulation is a good thing to strive for in object oriented design (I won't go into why, you can read that here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented). For this reason, static methods aren't permitted in interfaces.

Static classes should be able to do this so they can be used generically. I had to instead implement a Singleton to achieve the desired results.
I had a bunch of Static Business Layer classes that implemented CRUD methods like "Create", "Read", "Update", "Delete" for each entity type like "User", "Team", ect.. Then I created a base control that had an abstract property for the Business Layer class that implemented the CRUD methods. This allowed me to automate the "Create", "Read", "Update", "Delete" operations from the base class. I had to use a Singleton because of the Static limitation.

Most people seem to forget that in OOP Classes are objects too, and so they have messages, which for some reason c# calls "static method".
The fact that differences exist between instance objects and class objects only shows flaws or shortcomings in the language.
Optimist about c# though...

OK here is an example of needing a 'type method'. I am creating one of a set of classes based on some source XML. So I have a
static public bool IsHandled(XElement xml)
function which is called in turn on each class.
The function should be static as otherwise we waste time creating inappropriate objects.
As #Ian Boyde points out it could be done in a factory class, but this just adds complexity.
It would be nice to add it to the interface to force class implementors to implement it. This would not cause significant overhead - it is only a compile/link time check and does not affect the vtable.
However, it would also be a fairly minor improvement. As the method is static, I as the caller, must call it explicitly and so get an immediate compile error if it is not implemented. Allowing it to be specified on the interface would mean this error comes marginally earlier in the development cycle, but this is trivial compared to other broken-interface issues.
So it is a minor potential feature which on balance is probably best left out.

The fact that a static class is implemented in C# by Microsoft creating a special instance of a class with the static elements is just an oddity of how static functionality is achieved. It is isn't a theoretical point.
An interface SHOULD be a descriptor of the class interface - or how it is interacted with, and that should include interactions that are static. The general definition of interface (from Meriam-Webster): the place or area at which different things meet and communicate with or affect each other. When you omit static components of a class or static classes entirely, we are ignoring large sections of how these bad boys interact.
Here is a very clear example of where being able to use interfaces with static classes would be quite useful:
public interface ICrudModel<T, Tk>
{
Boolean Create(T obj);
T Retrieve(Tk key);
Boolean Update(T obj);
Boolean Delete(T obj);
}
Currently, I write the static classes that contain these methods without any kind of checking to make sure that I haven't forgotten anything. Is like the bad old days of programming before OOP.

C# and the CLR should support static methods in interfaces as Java does. The static modifier is part of a contract definition and does have meaning, specifically that the behavior and return value do not vary base on instance although it may still vary from call to call.
That said, I recommend that when you want to use a static method in an interface and cannot, use an annotation instead. You will get the functionality you are looking for.

Static Methods within an Interface are allowed as of c# 9 (see https://www.dotnetcurry.com/csharp/simpler-code-with-csharp-9).

I think the short answer is "because it is of zero usefulness".
To call an interface method, you need an instance of the type. From instance methods you can call any static methods you want to.

I think the question is getting at the fact that C# needs another keyword, for precisely this sort of situation. You want a method whose return value depends only on the type on which it is called. You can't call it "static" if said type is unknown. But once the type becomes known, it will become static. "Unresolved static" is the idea -- it's not static yet, but once we know the receiving type, it will be. This is a perfectly good concept, which is why programmers keep asking for it. But it didn't quite fit into the way the designers thought about the language.
Since it's not available, I have taken to using non-static methods in the way shown below. Not exactly ideal, but I can't see any approach that makes more sense, at least not for me.
public interface IZeroWrapper<TNumber> {
TNumber Zero {get;}
}
public class DoubleWrapper: IZeroWrapper<double> {
public double Zero { get { return 0; } }
}

As per Object oriented concept Interface implemented by classes and
have contract to access these implemented function(or methods) using
object.
So if you want to access Interface Contract methods you have to create object. It is always must that is not allowed in case of Static methods. Static classes ,method and variables never require objects and load in memory without creating object of that area(or class) or you can say do not require Object Creation.

Conceptually there is no reason why an interface could not define a contract that includes static methods.
For the current C# language implementation, the restriction is due to the allowance of inheritance of a base class and interfaces. If "class SomeBaseClass" implements "interface ISomeInterface" and "class SomeDerivedClass : SomeBaseClass, ISomeInterface" also implements the interface, a static method to implement an interface method would fail compile because a static method cannot have same signature as an instance method (which would be present in base class to implement the interface).
A static class is functionally identical to a singleton and serves the same purpose as a singleton with cleaner syntax. Since a singleton can implement an interface, interface implementations by statics are conceptually valid.
So it simply boils down to the limitation of C# name conflict for instance and static methods of the same name across inheritance. There is no reason why C# could not be "upgraded" to support static method contracts (interfaces).

An interface is an OOPS concept, which means every member of the interface should get used through an object or instance. Hence, an interface can not have static methods.

When a class implements an interface,it is creating instance for the interface members. While a static type doesnt have an instance,there is no point in having static signatures in an interface.