We Keep Coding

Interface marked as implemented in external lib, property from interface not visible, why? [duplicate]

What are the differences in implementing interfaces implicitly and explicitly in C#?
When should you use implicit and when should you use explicit?
Are there any pros and/or cons to one or the other?
Microsoft's official guidelines (from first edition Framework Design Guidelines) states that using explicit implementations are not recommended, since it gives the code unexpected behaviour.
I think this guideline is very valid in a pre-IoC-time, when you don't pass things around as interfaces.
Could anyone touch on that aspect as well?

Implicit is when you define your interface via a member on your class. Explicit is when you define methods within your class on the interface. I know that sounds confusing but here is what I mean: IList.CopyTo would be implicitly implemented as:
public void CopyTo(Array array, int index)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
and explicitly as:
void ICollection.CopyTo(Array array, int index)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
The difference is that implicit implementation allows you to access the interface through the class you created by casting the interface as that class and as the interface itself. Explicit implementation allows you to access the interface only by casting it as the interface itself.
MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); // Declared as concrete class
myclass.CopyTo //invalid with explicit
((IList)myClass).CopyTo //valid with explicit.
I use explicit primarily to keep the implementation clean, or when I need two implementations. Regardless, I rarely use it.
I am sure there are more reasons to use/not use explicit that others will post.
See the next post in this thread for excellent reasoning behind each.

Implicit definition would be to just add the methods / properties, etc. demanded by the interface directly to the class as public methods.
Explicit definition forces the members to be exposed only when you are working with the interface directly, and not the underlying implementation. This is preferred in most cases.
By working directly with the interface, you are not acknowledging,
and coupling your code to the underlying implementation.
In the event that you already have, say, a public property Name in
your code and you want to implement an interface that also has a
Name property, doing it explicitly will keep the two separate. Even
if they were doing the same thing I'd still delegate the explicit
call to the Name property. You never know, you may want to change
how Name works for the normal class and how Name, the interface
property works later on.
If you implement an interface implicitly then your class now exposes
new behaviours that might only be relevant to a client of the
interface and it means you aren't keeping your classes succinct
enough (my opinion).

In addition to excellent answers already provided, there are some cases where explicit implementation is REQUIRED for the compiler to be able to figure out what is required. Take a look at IEnumerable<T> as a prime example that will likely come up fairly often.
Here's an example:
public abstract class StringList : IEnumerable<string>
{
private string[] _list = new string[] {"foo", "bar", "baz"};
// ...
#region IEnumerable<string> Members
public IEnumerator<string> GetEnumerator()
{
foreach (string s in _list)
{ yield return s; }
}
#endregion
#region IEnumerable Members
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return this.GetEnumerator();
}
#endregion
}
Here, IEnumerable<string> implements IEnumerable, hence we need to too. But hang on, both the generic and the normal version both implement functions with the same method signature (C# ignores return type for this). This is completely legal and fine. How does the compiler resolve which to use? It forces you to only have, at most, one implicit definition, then it can resolve whatever it needs to.
ie.
StringList sl = new StringList();
// uses the implicit definition.
IEnumerator<string> enumerableString = sl.GetEnumerator();
// same as above, only a little more explicit.
IEnumerator<string> enumerableString2 = ((IEnumerable<string>)sl).GetEnumerator();
// returns the same as above, but via the explicit definition
IEnumerator enumerableStuff = ((IEnumerable)sl).GetEnumerator();
PS: The little piece of indirection in the explicit definition for IEnumerable works because inside the function the compiler knows that the actual type of the variable is a StringList, and that's how it resolves the function call. Nifty little fact for implementing some of the layers of abstraction some of the .NET core interfaces seem to have accumulated.

Reason #1
I tend to use explicit interface implementation when I want to discourage "programming to an implementation" (Design Principles from Design Patterns).
For example, in an MVP-based web application:
public interface INavigator {
void Redirect(string url);
}
public sealed class StandardNavigator : INavigator {
void INavigator.Redirect(string url) {
Response.Redirect(url);
}
}
Now another class (such as a presenter) is less likely to depend on the StandardNavigator implementation and more likely to depend on the INavigator interface (since the implementation would need to be cast to an interface to make use of the Redirect method).
Reason #2
Another reason I might go with an explicit interface implementation would be to keep a class's "default" interface cleaner. For example, if I were developing an ASP.NET server control, I might want two interfaces:
The class's primary interface, which is used by web page developers; and
A "hidden" interface used by the presenter that I develop to handle the control's logic
A simple example follows. It's a combo box control that lists customers. In this example, the web page developer isn't interested in populating the list; instead, they just want to be able to select a customer by GUID or to obtain the selected customer's GUID. A presenter would populate the box on the first page load, and this presenter is encapsulated by the control.
public sealed class CustomerComboBox : ComboBox, ICustomerComboBox {
private readonly CustomerComboBoxPresenter presenter;
public CustomerComboBox() {
presenter = new CustomerComboBoxPresenter(this);
}
protected override void OnLoad() {
if (!Page.IsPostBack) presenter.HandleFirstLoad();
}
// Primary interface used by web page developers
public Guid ClientId {
get { return new Guid(SelectedItem.Value); }
set { SelectedItem.Value = value.ToString(); }
}
// "Hidden" interface used by presenter
IEnumerable<CustomerDto> ICustomerComboBox.DataSource { set; }
}
The presenter populates the data source, and the web page developer never needs to be aware of its existence.
But's It's Not a Silver Cannonball
I wouldn't recommend always employing explicit interface implementations. Those are just two examples where they might be helpful.

To quote Jeffrey Richter from CLR via C#
(EIMI means Explicit Interface Method Implementation)
It is critically important for you to
understand some ramifications that
exist when using EIMIs. And because of
these ramifications, you should try to
avoid EIMIs as much as possible.
Fortunately, generic interfaces help
you avoid EIMIs quite a bit. But there
may still be times when you will need
to use them (such as implementing two
interface methods with the same name
and signature). Here are the big
problems with EIMIs:
There is no documentation explaining how a type specifically
implements an EIMI method, and there
is no Microsoft Visual Studio
IntelliSense support.
Value type instances are boxed when cast to an interface.
An EIMI cannot be called by a derived type.
If you use an interface reference ANY virtual chain can be explicitly replaced with EIMI on any derived class and when an object of such type is cast to the interface, your virtual chain is ignored and the explicit implementation is called. That's anything but polymorphism.
EIMIs can also be used to hide non-strongly typed interface members from basic Framework Interfaces' implementations such as IEnumerable<T> so your class doesn't expose a non strongly typed method directly, but is syntactical correct.

I use explicit interface implementation most of the time. Here are the main reasons.
Refactoring is safer
When changing an interface, it's better if the compiler can check it. This is harder with implicit implementations.
Two common cases come to mind:
Adding a function to an interface, where an existing class that implements this interface already happens to have a method with the same signature as the new one. This can lead to unexpected behavior, and has bitten me hard several times. It's difficult to "see" when debugging because that function is likely not located with the other interface methods in the file (the self-documenting issue mentioned below).
Removing a function from an interface. Implicitly implemented methods will be suddenly dead code, but explicitly implemented methods will get caught by compile error. Even if the dead code is good to keep around, I want to be forced to review it and promote it.
It's unfortunate that C# doesn't have a keyword that forces us to mark a method as an implicit implementation, so the compiler could do the extra checks. Virtual methods don't have either of the above problems due to required use of 'override' and 'new'.
Note: for fixed or rarely-changing interfaces (typically from vendor API's), this is not a problem. For my own interfaces, though, I can't predict when/how they will change.
It's self-documenting
If I see 'public bool Execute()' in a class, it's going to take extra work to figure out that it's part of an interface. Somebody will probably have to comment it saying so, or put it in a group of other interface implementations, all under a region or grouping comment saying "implementation of ITask". Of course, that only works if the group header isn't offscreen..
Whereas: 'bool ITask.Execute()' is clear and unambiguous.
Clear separation of interface implementation
I think of interfaces as being more 'public' than public methods because they are crafted to expose just a bit of the surface area of the concrete type. They reduce the type to a capability, a behavior, a set of traits, etc. And in the implementation, I think it's useful to keep this separation.
As I am looking through a class's code, when I come across explicit interface implementations, my brain shifts into "code contract" mode. Often these implementations simply forward to other methods, but sometimes they will do extra state/param checking, conversion of incoming parameters to better match internal requirements, or even translation for versioning purposes (i.e. multiple generations of interfaces all punting down to common implementations).
(I realize that publics are also code contracts, but interfaces are much stronger, especially in an interface-driven codebase where direct use of concrete types is usually a sign of internal-only code.)
Related: Reason 2 above by Jon.
And so on
Plus the advantages already mentioned in other answers here:
When required, as per disambiguation or needing an internal interface
Discourages "programming to an implementation" (Reason 1 by Jon)
Problems
It's not all fun and happiness. There are some cases where I stick with implicits:
Value types, because that will require boxing and lower perf. This isn't a strict rule, and depends on the interface and how it's intended to be used. IComparable? Implicit. IFormattable? Probably explicit.
Trivial system interfaces that have methods that are frequently called directly (like IDisposable.Dispose).
Also, it can be a pain to do the casting when you do in fact have the concrete type and want to call an explicit interface method. I deal with this in one of two ways:
Add publics and have the interface methods forward to them for the implementation. Typically happens with simpler interfaces when working internally.
(My preferred method) Add a public IMyInterface I { get { return this; } } (which should get inlined) and call foo.I.InterfaceMethod(). If multiple interfaces that need this ability, expand the name beyond I (in my experience it's rare that I have this need).

In addition to the other reasons already stated, this is the situation in which a class is implementing two different interfaces that have a property/method with the same name and signature.
/// <summary>
/// This is a Book
/// </summary>
interface IBook
{
string Title { get; }
string ISBN { get; }
}
/// <summary>
/// This is a Person
/// </summary>
interface IPerson
{
string Title { get; }
string Forename { get; }
string Surname { get; }
}
/// <summary>
/// This is some freaky book-person.
/// </summary>
class Class1 : IBook, IPerson
{
/// <summary>
/// This method is shared by both Book and Person
/// </summary>
public string Title
{
get
{
string personTitle = "Mr";
string bookTitle = "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy";
// What do we do here?
return null;
}
}
#region IPerson Members
public string Forename
{
get { return "Lee"; }
}
public string Surname
{
get { return "Oades"; }
}
#endregion
#region IBook Members
public string ISBN
{
get { return "1-904048-46-3"; }
}
#endregion
}
This code compiles and runs OK, but the Title property is shared.
Clearly, we'd want the value of Title returned to depend on whether we were treating Class1 as a Book or a Person. This is when we can use the explicit interface.
string IBook.Title
{
get
{
return "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy";
}
}
string IPerson.Title
{
get
{
return "Mr";
}
}
public string Title
{
get { return "Still shared"; }
}
Notice that the explicit interface definitions are inferred to be Public - and hence you can't declare them to be public (or otherwise) explicitly.
Note also that you can still have a "shared" version (as shown above), but whilst this is possible, the existence of such a property is questionable. Perhaps it could be used as a default implementation of Title - so that existing code would not have to be modified to cast Class1 to IBook or IPerson.
If you do not define the "shared" (implicit) Title, consumers of Class1 must explicitly cast instances of Class1 to IBook or IPerson first - otherwise the code will not compile.

If you implement explicitly, you will only be able to reference the interface members through a reference that is of the type of the interface. A reference that is the type of the implementing class will not expose those interface members.
If your implementing class is not public, except for the method used to create the class (which could be a factory or IoC container), and except for the interface methods (of course), then I don't see any advantage to explicitly implementing interfaces.
Otherwise, explicitly implementing interfaces makes sure that references to your concrete implementing class are not used, allowing you to change that implementation at a later time. "Makes sure", I suppose, is the "advantage". A well-factored implementation can accomplish this without explicit implementation.
The disadvantage, in my opinion, is that you will find yourself casting types to/from the interface in the implementation code that does have access to non-public members.
Like many things, the advantage is the disadvantage (and vice-versa). Explicitly implementing interfaces will ensure that your concrete class implementation code is not exposed.

An implicit interface implementation is where you have a method with the same signature of the interface.
An explicit interface implementation is where you explicitly declare which interface the method belongs to.
interface I1
{
void implicitExample();
}
interface I2
{
void explicitExample();
}
class C : I1, I2
{
void implicitExample()
{
Console.WriteLine("I1.implicitExample()");
}
void I2.explicitExample()
{
Console.WriteLine("I2.explicitExample()");
}
}
MSDN: implicit and explicit interface implementations

Every class member that implements an interface exports a declaration which is semantically similar to the way VB.NET interface declarations are written, e.g.
Public Overridable Function Foo() As Integer Implements IFoo.Foo
Although the name of the class member will often match that of the interface member, and the class member will often be public, neither of those things is required. One may also declare:
Protected Overridable Function IFoo_Foo() As Integer Implements IFoo.Foo
In which case the class and its derivatives would be allowed to access a class member using the name IFoo_Foo, but the outside world would only be able to access that particular member by casting to IFoo. Such an approach is often good in cases where an interface method will have specified behavior on all implementations, but useful behavior on only some [e.g. the specified behavior for a read-only collection's IList<T>.Add method is to throw NotSupportedException]. Unfortunately, the only proper way to implement the interface in C# is:
int IFoo.Foo() { return IFoo_Foo(); }
protected virtual int IFoo_Foo() { ... real code goes here ... }
Not as nice.

The previous answers explain why implementing an interface explicitly in C# may be preferrable (for mostly formal reasons). However, there is one situation where explicit implementation is mandatory: In order to avoid leaking the encapsulation when the interface is non-public, but the implementing class is public.
// Given:
internal interface I { void M(); }
// Then explicit implementation correctly observes encapsulation of I:
// Both ((I)CExplicit).M and CExplicit.M are accessible only internally.
public class CExplicit: I { void I.M() { } }
// However, implicit implementation breaks encapsulation of I, because
// ((I)CImplicit).M is only accessible internally, while CImplicit.M is accessible publicly.
public class CImplicit: I { public void M() { } }
The above leakage is unavoidable because, according to the C# specification, "All interface members implicitly have public access." As a consequence, implicit implementations must also give public access, even if the interface itself is e.g. internal.
Implicit interface implementation in C# is a great convenience. In practice, many programmers use it all the time/everywhere without further consideration. This leads to messy type surfaces at best and leaked encapsulation at worst. Other languages, such as F#, don't even allow it.

One important use of explicit interface implementation is when in need to implement interfaces with mixed visibility.
The problem and solution are well explained in the article C# Internal Interface.
For example, if you want to protect leakage of objects between application layers, this technique allows you to specify different visibility of members that could cause the leakage.

I've found myself using explicit implementations more often recently, for the following practical reasons:
Always using explicit from the starts prevents having any naming collisions, in which explicit implementation would be required anyways
Consumers are "forced" to use the interface instead of the implementation (aka not "programming to an implementation") which they should / must do anyways when you're using DI
No "zombie" members in the implementations - removing any member from the interface declaration will result in compiler errors if not removed from the implementation too
Default values for optional parameters, as well constraints on generic arguments are automatically adopted - no need to write them twice and keep them in sync

Why does this interface have to be explicitly implemented?

Coming back to C# after a few years so I'm a little rusty. Came across this (simplified) code and it's leaving my head scratching.
Why do you have to explicitly implement the IDataItem.Children property? Doesn't the normal Children property satisfy the requirement? After all, the property is used directly to satisfy it. Why is it not implicit?
public interface IDataItem {
IEnumerable<string> Children { get; }
}
public class DataItem : IDataItem {
public Collection<string> Children { get; } = new Collection<string>();
// Why doesn't 'Children' above implement this automatically?!
// After all it's used directly to satisfy the requirement!
IEnumerable<string> IDataItem.Children => Children;
}
According to the C# source, here's the definition of Collection<T>:
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.ComVisible(false)]
public class Collection<T> :
System.Collections.Generic.ICollection<T>,
System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<T>, <-- Right Here
System.Collections.Generic.IList<T>,
System.Collections.Generic.IReadOnlyCollection<T>,
System.Collections.Generic.IReadOnlyList<T>,
System.Collections.IList
As you can see, it explicitly implements IEnumerable<T> and from my understanding, if 'X' implements 'Y' then 'X' is a 'Y', so Collection<String> is an IEnumerable<String> so I'm not sure why it isn't satisfied.

Perhaps this example makes it clearer. We want signatures to match exactly1,2, no substitutions allowed, despite any inheritance relationships between the types.
We're not allowed to write this:
public interface IDataItem {
void DoStuff(string value);
}
public class DataItem : IDataItem {
public void DoStuff(object value) { }
}
Your example is the same, except your asking for return types rather than parameters (and employing a narrowing rather than widening conversion, for obvious reasons). Nontheless, the same principal applies. When it comes to matching signatures, the types must match exactly3.
You can ask for a language that would allow such things to happen and such languages may exist. But the fact of the matter is, these are the rules of C#.
1Outside of some limited support for Co- and Contra-variance involving generics and interfaces/delgates.
2Some may argue about whether signature is the right word to use here since in this case, return types matter as much as parameter types, generic arity, etc; In most other situations where someone talks about C# method signatures, they'll be explicitly ignoring the return type because they're (explicitly or implicitly) considering what the overloading rules say, and for overloading, return types are not part of the signature.
Nonetheless, I'm happy with my usage of the word "signature" here. Signatures aren't formally defined in the C# specification and where it's used, it's often to point out which parts of the signature aren't to be considered for overloading.
3Not to mention the issues that would be raised if your Children method was returning a struct that happened to implement IEnumerable<string>. Now you've got a method that returns the value of a value type and a caller (via the IDataItem interface who is expecting to receive a reference to an object.
So it's not even that the method could be used as-is. We'd have to (in this case) have hidden boxing conversions to implement the interface. When this part of C# was specced, they were, I believe, trying not to have too much "hidden magic" for code you could easily write yourself.

In your example your "normal" Children property do not actually satisfy the interface requirement. The type is different. It does not really matter that you can cast it - they are different.
Similar example and maybe a bit more obvious is if you would implement an interface with a actual method that returns IEnumerable and tried an ICollection method from the actual class. There is still that compile time error.
As #Ben Voigt said the conversion still generates some code, and if you want to have it - you need to add it implicitly.

The question has been answered here (you have to match the interface types) and we can demonstrate the problem with an example. If this worked:
public interface IDataItem {
IEnumerable<string> Children { get; set; }
void Wipe();
}
public class DataItem : IDataItem {
public Collection<string> Children { get; } = new Collection<string>();
public void Wipe() {
Children.ClearItems(); //Property exists on Collection, but not on IEnumerable
}
}
And we then use this code like this:
IDataItem x = new DataItem();
//Should be legal, as Queue implements IEnumerable. Note entirely sure
//how this would work, but this is the system you are asking about.
x.Children = new Queue<string>();
x.Wipe(); // Will fail, as Queue does not have a ClearItems method within
Either you mean the property to only ever be enumerable, or you need the properties of the Collection class - type your interface appropriately.

Any class that implements the interface must contain the definition for method that matches the signature that the interface specifies. The interface defines only the signature. In that way, an interface in C# is similar to an abstract class in which all the methods are abstract.
Interfaces can contain methods, properties, events, indexers, or any combination of those four member types.
Here is the good read about interfaces.
Interfaces in C#
Hope it will help you in further understanding.

Implement a class from Interface having implemented methods as static (.NET) [duplicate]

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.

what's difference between interface.method() and method() [duplicate]

What are the differences in implementing interfaces implicitly and explicitly in C#?
When should you use implicit and when should you use explicit?
Are there any pros and/or cons to one or the other?
Microsoft's official guidelines (from first edition Framework Design Guidelines) states that using explicit implementations are not recommended, since it gives the code unexpected behaviour.
I think this guideline is very valid in a pre-IoC-time, when you don't pass things around as interfaces.
Could anyone touch on that aspect as well?

Implicit is when you define your interface via a member on your class. Explicit is when you define methods within your class on the interface. I know that sounds confusing but here is what I mean: IList.CopyTo would be implicitly implemented as:
public void CopyTo(Array array, int index)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
and explicitly as:
void ICollection.CopyTo(Array array, int index)
{
throw new NotImplementedException();
}
The difference is that implicit implementation allows you to access the interface through the class you created by casting the interface as that class and as the interface itself. Explicit implementation allows you to access the interface only by casting it as the interface itself.
MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); // Declared as concrete class
myclass.CopyTo //invalid with explicit
((IList)myClass).CopyTo //valid with explicit.
I use explicit primarily to keep the implementation clean, or when I need two implementations. Regardless, I rarely use it.
I am sure there are more reasons to use/not use explicit that others will post.
See the next post in this thread for excellent reasoning behind each.

Implicit definition would be to just add the methods / properties, etc. demanded by the interface directly to the class as public methods.
Explicit definition forces the members to be exposed only when you are working with the interface directly, and not the underlying implementation. This is preferred in most cases.
By working directly with the interface, you are not acknowledging,
and coupling your code to the underlying implementation.
In the event that you already have, say, a public property Name in
your code and you want to implement an interface that also has a
Name property, doing it explicitly will keep the two separate. Even
if they were doing the same thing I'd still delegate the explicit
call to the Name property. You never know, you may want to change
how Name works for the normal class and how Name, the interface
property works later on.
If you implement an interface implicitly then your class now exposes
new behaviours that might only be relevant to a client of the
interface and it means you aren't keeping your classes succinct
enough (my opinion).

In addition to excellent answers already provided, there are some cases where explicit implementation is REQUIRED for the compiler to be able to figure out what is required. Take a look at IEnumerable<T> as a prime example that will likely come up fairly often.
Here's an example:
public abstract class StringList : IEnumerable<string>
{
private string[] _list = new string[] {"foo", "bar", "baz"};
// ...
#region IEnumerable<string> Members
public IEnumerator<string> GetEnumerator()
{
foreach (string s in _list)
{ yield return s; }
}
#endregion
#region IEnumerable Members
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return this.GetEnumerator();
}
#endregion
}
Here, IEnumerable<string> implements IEnumerable, hence we need to too. But hang on, both the generic and the normal version both implement functions with the same method signature (C# ignores return type for this). This is completely legal and fine. How does the compiler resolve which to use? It forces you to only have, at most, one implicit definition, then it can resolve whatever it needs to.
ie.
StringList sl = new StringList();
// uses the implicit definition.
IEnumerator<string> enumerableString = sl.GetEnumerator();
// same as above, only a little more explicit.
IEnumerator<string> enumerableString2 = ((IEnumerable<string>)sl).GetEnumerator();
// returns the same as above, but via the explicit definition
IEnumerator enumerableStuff = ((IEnumerable)sl).GetEnumerator();
PS: The little piece of indirection in the explicit definition for IEnumerable works because inside the function the compiler knows that the actual type of the variable is a StringList, and that's how it resolves the function call. Nifty little fact for implementing some of the layers of abstraction some of the .NET core interfaces seem to have accumulated.

Reason #1
I tend to use explicit interface implementation when I want to discourage "programming to an implementation" (Design Principles from Design Patterns).
For example, in an MVP-based web application:
public interface INavigator {
void Redirect(string url);
}
public sealed class StandardNavigator : INavigator {
void INavigator.Redirect(string url) {
Response.Redirect(url);
}
}
Now another class (such as a presenter) is less likely to depend on the StandardNavigator implementation and more likely to depend on the INavigator interface (since the implementation would need to be cast to an interface to make use of the Redirect method).
Reason #2
Another reason I might go with an explicit interface implementation would be to keep a class's "default" interface cleaner. For example, if I were developing an ASP.NET server control, I might want two interfaces:
The class's primary interface, which is used by web page developers; and
A "hidden" interface used by the presenter that I develop to handle the control's logic
A simple example follows. It's a combo box control that lists customers. In this example, the web page developer isn't interested in populating the list; instead, they just want to be able to select a customer by GUID or to obtain the selected customer's GUID. A presenter would populate the box on the first page load, and this presenter is encapsulated by the control.
public sealed class CustomerComboBox : ComboBox, ICustomerComboBox {
private readonly CustomerComboBoxPresenter presenter;
public CustomerComboBox() {
presenter = new CustomerComboBoxPresenter(this);
}
protected override void OnLoad() {
if (!Page.IsPostBack) presenter.HandleFirstLoad();
}
// Primary interface used by web page developers
public Guid ClientId {
get { return new Guid(SelectedItem.Value); }
set { SelectedItem.Value = value.ToString(); }
}
// "Hidden" interface used by presenter
IEnumerable<CustomerDto> ICustomerComboBox.DataSource { set; }
}
The presenter populates the data source, and the web page developer never needs to be aware of its existence.
But's It's Not a Silver Cannonball
I wouldn't recommend always employing explicit interface implementations. Those are just two examples where they might be helpful.

To quote Jeffrey Richter from CLR via C#
(EIMI means Explicit Interface Method Implementation)
It is critically important for you to
understand some ramifications that
exist when using EIMIs. And because of
these ramifications, you should try to
avoid EIMIs as much as possible.
Fortunately, generic interfaces help
you avoid EIMIs quite a bit. But there
may still be times when you will need
to use them (such as implementing two
interface methods with the same name
and signature). Here are the big
problems with EIMIs:
There is no documentation explaining how a type specifically
implements an EIMI method, and there
is no Microsoft Visual Studio
IntelliSense support.
Value type instances are boxed when cast to an interface.
An EIMI cannot be called by a derived type.
If you use an interface reference ANY virtual chain can be explicitly replaced with EIMI on any derived class and when an object of such type is cast to the interface, your virtual chain is ignored and the explicit implementation is called. That's anything but polymorphism.
EIMIs can also be used to hide non-strongly typed interface members from basic Framework Interfaces' implementations such as IEnumerable<T> so your class doesn't expose a non strongly typed method directly, but is syntactical correct.

I use explicit interface implementation most of the time. Here are the main reasons.
Refactoring is safer
When changing an interface, it's better if the compiler can check it. This is harder with implicit implementations.
Two common cases come to mind:
Adding a function to an interface, where an existing class that implements this interface already happens to have a method with the same signature as the new one. This can lead to unexpected behavior, and has bitten me hard several times. It's difficult to "see" when debugging because that function is likely not located with the other interface methods in the file (the self-documenting issue mentioned below).
Removing a function from an interface. Implicitly implemented methods will be suddenly dead code, but explicitly implemented methods will get caught by compile error. Even if the dead code is good to keep around, I want to be forced to review it and promote it.
It's unfortunate that C# doesn't have a keyword that forces us to mark a method as an implicit implementation, so the compiler could do the extra checks. Virtual methods don't have either of the above problems due to required use of 'override' and 'new'.
Note: for fixed or rarely-changing interfaces (typically from vendor API's), this is not a problem. For my own interfaces, though, I can't predict when/how they will change.
It's self-documenting
If I see 'public bool Execute()' in a class, it's going to take extra work to figure out that it's part of an interface. Somebody will probably have to comment it saying so, or put it in a group of other interface implementations, all under a region or grouping comment saying "implementation of ITask". Of course, that only works if the group header isn't offscreen..
Whereas: 'bool ITask.Execute()' is clear and unambiguous.
Clear separation of interface implementation
I think of interfaces as being more 'public' than public methods because they are crafted to expose just a bit of the surface area of the concrete type. They reduce the type to a capability, a behavior, a set of traits, etc. And in the implementation, I think it's useful to keep this separation.
As I am looking through a class's code, when I come across explicit interface implementations, my brain shifts into "code contract" mode. Often these implementations simply forward to other methods, but sometimes they will do extra state/param checking, conversion of incoming parameters to better match internal requirements, or even translation for versioning purposes (i.e. multiple generations of interfaces all punting down to common implementations).
(I realize that publics are also code contracts, but interfaces are much stronger, especially in an interface-driven codebase where direct use of concrete types is usually a sign of internal-only code.)
Related: Reason 2 above by Jon.
And so on
Plus the advantages already mentioned in other answers here:
When required, as per disambiguation or needing an internal interface
Discourages "programming to an implementation" (Reason 1 by Jon)
Problems
It's not all fun and happiness. There are some cases where I stick with implicits:
Value types, because that will require boxing and lower perf. This isn't a strict rule, and depends on the interface and how it's intended to be used. IComparable? Implicit. IFormattable? Probably explicit.
Trivial system interfaces that have methods that are frequently called directly (like IDisposable.Dispose).
Also, it can be a pain to do the casting when you do in fact have the concrete type and want to call an explicit interface method. I deal with this in one of two ways:
Add publics and have the interface methods forward to them for the implementation. Typically happens with simpler interfaces when working internally.
(My preferred method) Add a public IMyInterface I { get { return this; } } (which should get inlined) and call foo.I.InterfaceMethod(). If multiple interfaces that need this ability, expand the name beyond I (in my experience it's rare that I have this need).

In addition to the other reasons already stated, this is the situation in which a class is implementing two different interfaces that have a property/method with the same name and signature.
/// <summary>
/// This is a Book
/// </summary>
interface IBook
{
string Title { get; }
string ISBN { get; }
}
/// <summary>
/// This is a Person
/// </summary>
interface IPerson
{
string Title { get; }
string Forename { get; }
string Surname { get; }
}
/// <summary>
/// This is some freaky book-person.
/// </summary>
class Class1 : IBook, IPerson
{
/// <summary>
/// This method is shared by both Book and Person
/// </summary>
public string Title
{
get
{
string personTitle = "Mr";
string bookTitle = "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy";
// What do we do here?
return null;
}
}
#region IPerson Members
public string Forename
{
get { return "Lee"; }
}
public string Surname
{
get { return "Oades"; }
}
#endregion
#region IBook Members
public string ISBN
{
get { return "1-904048-46-3"; }
}
#endregion
}
This code compiles and runs OK, but the Title property is shared.
Clearly, we'd want the value of Title returned to depend on whether we were treating Class1 as a Book or a Person. This is when we can use the explicit interface.
string IBook.Title
{
get
{
return "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy";
}
}
string IPerson.Title
{
get
{
return "Mr";
}
}
public string Title
{
get { return "Still shared"; }
}
Notice that the explicit interface definitions are inferred to be Public - and hence you can't declare them to be public (or otherwise) explicitly.
Note also that you can still have a "shared" version (as shown above), but whilst this is possible, the existence of such a property is questionable. Perhaps it could be used as a default implementation of Title - so that existing code would not have to be modified to cast Class1 to IBook or IPerson.
If you do not define the "shared" (implicit) Title, consumers of Class1 must explicitly cast instances of Class1 to IBook or IPerson first - otherwise the code will not compile.

If you implement explicitly, you will only be able to reference the interface members through a reference that is of the type of the interface. A reference that is the type of the implementing class will not expose those interface members.
If your implementing class is not public, except for the method used to create the class (which could be a factory or IoC container), and except for the interface methods (of course), then I don't see any advantage to explicitly implementing interfaces.
Otherwise, explicitly implementing interfaces makes sure that references to your concrete implementing class are not used, allowing you to change that implementation at a later time. "Makes sure", I suppose, is the "advantage". A well-factored implementation can accomplish this without explicit implementation.
The disadvantage, in my opinion, is that you will find yourself casting types to/from the interface in the implementation code that does have access to non-public members.
Like many things, the advantage is the disadvantage (and vice-versa). Explicitly implementing interfaces will ensure that your concrete class implementation code is not exposed.

An implicit interface implementation is where you have a method with the same signature of the interface.
An explicit interface implementation is where you explicitly declare which interface the method belongs to.
interface I1
{
void implicitExample();
}
interface I2
{
void explicitExample();
}
class C : I1, I2
{
void implicitExample()
{
Console.WriteLine("I1.implicitExample()");
}
void I2.explicitExample()
{
Console.WriteLine("I2.explicitExample()");
}
}
MSDN: implicit and explicit interface implementations

Every class member that implements an interface exports a declaration which is semantically similar to the way VB.NET interface declarations are written, e.g.
Public Overridable Function Foo() As Integer Implements IFoo.Foo
Although the name of the class member will often match that of the interface member, and the class member will often be public, neither of those things is required. One may also declare:
Protected Overridable Function IFoo_Foo() As Integer Implements IFoo.Foo
In which case the class and its derivatives would be allowed to access a class member using the name IFoo_Foo, but the outside world would only be able to access that particular member by casting to IFoo. Such an approach is often good in cases where an interface method will have specified behavior on all implementations, but useful behavior on only some [e.g. the specified behavior for a read-only collection's IList<T>.Add method is to throw NotSupportedException]. Unfortunately, the only proper way to implement the interface in C# is:
int IFoo.Foo() { return IFoo_Foo(); }
protected virtual int IFoo_Foo() { ... real code goes here ... }
Not as nice.

The previous answers explain why implementing an interface explicitly in C# may be preferrable (for mostly formal reasons). However, there is one situation where explicit implementation is mandatory: In order to avoid leaking the encapsulation when the interface is non-public, but the implementing class is public.
// Given:
internal interface I { void M(); }
// Then explicit implementation correctly observes encapsulation of I:
// Both ((I)CExplicit).M and CExplicit.M are accessible only internally.
public class CExplicit: I { void I.M() { } }
// However, implicit implementation breaks encapsulation of I, because
// ((I)CImplicit).M is only accessible internally, while CImplicit.M is accessible publicly.
public class CImplicit: I { public void M() { } }
The above leakage is unavoidable because, according to the C# specification, "All interface members implicitly have public access." As a consequence, implicit implementations must also give public access, even if the interface itself is e.g. internal.
Implicit interface implementation in C# is a great convenience. In practice, many programmers use it all the time/everywhere without further consideration. This leads to messy type surfaces at best and leaked encapsulation at worst. Other languages, such as F#, don't even allow it.

One important use of explicit interface implementation is when in need to implement interfaces with mixed visibility.
The problem and solution are well explained in the article C# Internal Interface.
For example, if you want to protect leakage of objects between application layers, this technique allows you to specify different visibility of members that could cause the leakage.

I've found myself using explicit implementations more often recently, for the following practical reasons:
Always using explicit from the starts prevents having any naming collisions, in which explicit implementation would be required anyways
Consumers are "forced" to use the interface instead of the implementation (aka not "programming to an implementation") which they should / must do anyways when you're using DI
No "zombie" members in the implementations - removing any member from the interface declaration will result in compiler errors if not removed from the implementation too
Default values for optional parameters, as well constraints on generic arguments are automatically adopted - no need to write them twice and keep them in sync

Would .NET be able to function just as well without the use of type Object?

I am asking this because it seems like using Object seems to be an easy way out to solve certain problems, like "I don't have a specific type, so use Object", etc.
Also the reason this made me curious is because a colleague of mine told me that if .NET was a true object-oriented platform then it wouldn't have to have a catch all type like Object.
So if .NET didn't have the Object type, what would be the alternative ways to solve the occuring problems to make it function just the same?
Also just to note, this is not to bash .NET, as I use it daily in my work. Just want to know more about it.
EDIT: Another note I remembered is because the type Object exists, its effect ripples throughout the whole .NET. Like IEnumerable exists but also IEnumerable<T>. And in many situations you have to implement both the generic and non-generic version of things, etc.

I would say that the problem that is solved by Object is not "I don't have a specific type, so use Object", but rather "I don't really care what type this is; all I need to know it that it is an Object"

It is a convenience, not only for use as a 'generic' type but also for reflection, garbage collection etc.
Other languages (C++) can do without, but I would hesitate to say that makes those languages more OOP.

Your friend probably works with a dynamic language (like ruby or python), right?
There are a great many people who think that strongly typed languages should be referred to as "class oriented" rather then "object oriented", because all possible behaviors and polymorphism needs to be done up front in the class definition. When your method accepts anything, any any checks are done based off of the objects capabilities rather then its class, you could say that is a more object oriented approach.
I am sort of conflicted on this argument. There is this boneheaded belief in programming circles that OO is unequivocally Good, no matter what the problem or requirements. Because of that, people tend to try to win arguments by saying "such and such isn't object oriented", and since object oriented is a synonym for good, they win. Even though I think static languages are a pain to work with, I think calling them not OO is a disingenuous way to make your point. On the other hand, anything that will make a programmer reach outside his comfort zone and learn a new way to do something (if for no other reason then to win an argument) can't be totally bad. As I said, conflicted. :)

Remember that inheritance denotes an "is-a" relationship. Every class in .NET "is a(n)" object. They all have a ToString method. They all have a type, which you access through GetType. This sort of relationship and the resultant sharing of functionality is the basis of object-oriented programming.

In a strongly-typed framework, Objects have to start somewhere.
The type object is not there to provide an "easy" catch-all casting option, or to force you to cast down to the lowest common denominator. It is there to provide the absolute most general case for an object- a basis for reference comparison and a handy ToString() method, among a few others.

Yes object type can be misused, but it provides seminal functionality to the world of .NET (above all IMO is GetType()). So if there is a problem, it is not with having the type of object.
Alternatives are many, including Generics and OOP practices such as interfaces...

If the object derivation hierarchy didn't have a single unified head, then it would be impossible to test for equality between any two arbitrary...uh...things without resorting to dynamic typing.
Other than that, I suspect the functionality of object could have been handled just about as well by separate interfaces (IEqualable and IConvertableToString). On the other hand, object's virtual methods are pretty handy sometimes, especially ToString, which can be used by an IDE or debugger when displaying program state. It's really a pragmatic design.

I'm by no means particularly knowledgeable on this subject, but from my perspective it was useful to allow people to build polymorphic components without having prior knowledge of how those components would be consumed. What do I mean by that? Let me try to explain.
Let's take a simple example with the .NET framework's ArrayList class. This was part of the original framework, before Generics were introduced. The authors of the ArrayList class were trying to provide a useful dynamic list implementation, but they had no way of knowing what kinds of objects would be inserted into the list. They used the Object type to represent the items in the list because it would allow any type of class to be added to the list. For example:
ArrayList people = new ArrayList();
people.Add(new Doctor());
people.Add(new Lawyer());
people.Add(new PetDetective());
people.Add(new Ferrari()); // Yikes!
// ...
for (int i = 0; i < people.Count; i++)
{
object person = people[0];
// ...
}
Now, if this were your own application and you knew that your Doctor, Lawyer, and PetDetective classes all derived from a common Person base class, then you could, in theory, build your own linked list implementation based on the Person class rather than the Object class. However, that's a lot of extra work for very little benefit when you already have a built and tested ArrayList class. If you really want to make it specific to your Person base class, then you could always create a wrapper class for ArrayList that only accepts Person-derived objects.
In C++, you could do essentially the same thing using the "void pointer" data type (void*). However, C++ also supported templates (very similar to generics), which made it much easier to build a useful component without knowing the details of what other classes it would be used with. Since C# did not initally support generics, using the Object type was really the only way to build general polymorphic components for other people to use.

The idea that the concept of System.Object could be replaced by interfaces that, as a rule, all classes implement has been mentioned a few times on this question. While I think the idea is valid, in the end I would say that it doesn't buy you anything. Even if such interfaces existed, the question would still remain of how the compiler would actually ensure that classes implemented those interfaces.
Below is some example code where I try to explore a hypothetical situation where there is no System.Object type and how the implementation under the hood as well as usage of those interfaces might look.
// let's start off by defining interfaces to describe the various methods that are currently available from the System.Object class
public interface IEquatable
{
bool Equals(IEquatable other);
}
public interface IHashCodeGenerator
{
int GetHashCode();
}
public interface ITypeIdentifiable
{
Type GetType();
}
public interface IConvertibleToString
{
string ToString();
}
// This guy throws a wrench into things, because we can't privately (or "protectedly") implement an interface.
// This is discussed further below on the MyClass.MemberwiseClone method.
public interface IMemberwiseCloneable
{
}
// This class simply encapsulates similar functionality found within the System.Object class
public static class ClrInternals
{
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.InternalCall)]
internal static extern bool Equals(IEquatable objA, IEquatable objB);
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.InternalCall)]
internal static extern int GetHashCode(IHashCodeGenerator hashGenerator);
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.InternalCall)]
internal static extern Type GetType(ITypeIdentifiable typedInstance);
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.InternalCall)]
internal static extern IMemberwiseCloneable MemberwiseClone(IMemberwiseCloneable original);
}
// let's say that as a rule the compiler implicitly makes all classes implement these interfaces
class MyClassExampleA : IEquatable, IHashCodeGenerator, ITypeIdentifiable, IConvertibleToString, IMemberwiseCloneable
{
// The compiler also implicitly makes all classes implement the interfaces with the following code (unless otherwise specified)
#region IEquatable Members
public bool Equals(IEquatable other)
{
// let's suppose that this is equivalent to the current implementation of Object.Equals
return ClrInternals.Equals(this, other);
}
#endregion
#region IHashCodeGenerator Members
public int GetHashCode()
{
// let's suppose that this is equivalent to the current implementation of Object.GetHashCode
return ClrInternals.GetHashCode(this);
}
#endregion
#region ITypeIdentifiable Members
public Type GetType()
{
// let's suppose that this is equivalent to the current implementation of Object.GetType
return ClrInternals.GetType(this);
}
#endregion
#region IConvertibleToString Members
public string ToString()
{
// let's suppose that this is equivalent to the current implementation of Object.ToString
return this.GetType().ToString();
}
#endregion
// this one is perhaps a little goofy, since it doesn't satisfy any interface
// In order to be equivalent to the current Object.MemberwiseClone implementation, I've made this protected,
// but we cannot have a protected method that implements an interface, so this throws a wrench into things.
protected MyClassExampleA MemberwiseClone()
{
// let's suppose that this is equivalent ot the current implementation of Object.MemberwiseClone
return (MyClassExampleA)ClrInternals.MemberwiseClone(this);
}
// ** All of the above code is just a representation of the implicit semantics that the compiler/CLR applies to a class. Perhaps this code is not actually generated by the compiler for each class (that would be a lot of duplication!), but rather the CLR might handle this logic internally
}
// Ok, so now I'm implementing a general Stack class
public class Stack
{
// what type should I use for the parameter?
// I have five different interfaces to choose from that I know all classes implement, but which one should I pick?
public void Push(type??? item)
{
// ...
}
// what type should I use for the return type?
// I have five interfaces to choose from, but if I return one,
// then my caller can't utilize the methods defined in the other interfaces without casting.
// I know all classes implement all five interfaces, but is it possible that my Stack might also contain non-class objects that don't implement all interfaces? In that case it might be dangerous for the caller to cast the return value from one interface to another.
public type??? Pop()
{
// ...
}
// In C++ I could have used void* or defined the Stack class as a template
}
// moving on...
class StackUtilizer
{
// here I try to utilize the Stack class
public void UseStack(Stack stack)
{
// what type should I use for the variable to hold the result of the Stack.Pop method?
type??? item = stack.Pop();
// if I use IEquatable
IEquatable item1 = stack.Pop();
IEquatable item2 = stack.Pop();
item1.Equals(item2); // then I can do this
Type itemType = item1.GetType(); // but I can't do this
string s = item1.ToString(); // nor can I do this
// Ok, this calls for another interface that composes all of these other interfaces into one
}
}
// let's define a single interface that pulls all of these other interfaces together
public interface IObject : IEquatable, IHashCodeGenerator, ITypeIdentifiable, IConvertibleToString, IMemberwiseCloneable
{
// no need to define any methods on this interface. The purpose of this interface is merely to consolidate all of these other basic interfaces together.
}
// now we change the compiler rule to say that all classes implicitly implement the IObject interface
class MyClassExampleB : IObject
{
// ... <refer to MyClassExampleA for the implicit implementation of the interfaces>
}
// now let's try implementing that Stack class again
public class Stack
{
// I know that all classes implement the IObject interface, so it is an acceptable type to use as a parameter
public void Push(IObject item)
{
// ...
}
// again, since all classes implement IObject, I can use it as the return type
public IObject Pop()
{
// ...
throw new NotImplementedException("This is an example. The implementation of this method is irrelevant.");
}
}
class StackUtilizer
{
// here I try to utilize the Stack class
public void UseStack(Stack stack)
{
// now I can just use IObject for my variables holding the return value of the Stack.Pop method
IObject item = stack.Pop();
// if I use IObject
IObject item1 = stack.Pop();
IObject item2 = stack.Pop();
item1.Equals(item2); // then I can do this
Type itemType = item1.GetType(); // and I can do this
string s = item1.ToString(); // and I can do this
}
}
So, in the end we still have an IObject interface, similar to the current System.Object class. The open question is how the compiler/CLR would handle enforcing our rule that all classes implement the IObject interface.
I can think of three possible approaches:
The compiler generates the implicit interface implementation for each class, which would cause a lot of duplication.
The CLR would handle those interface implementations in a special way that would not require the compiler to actually generate code for each class.
We define a base class, let's call it Object (starting to sound familiar?), that implements the IObject interface and we change the rule to say that all classes implicitly inherit from Object (this is exactly what we have today but without the interfaces).