Euhm no? They have different parameters and a different result, most likely a different abi too. What would happen if you call Write(), what would the position or value be?
Either way no we don’t support that, no we’re not ever going to support it, that’s not how interfaces work.
I know that common Interfaces dont Support that, but it would actually be cool and in my head it is actually symantically, because:
i can call “Write(myownparam)” and the Compiler would in my Vision be able to understand that it is still a member of “ITest”, its like ducktyping, isnt it?
Not sure I understand what you’re asking here?
honestly, now i figgured out by myself that the idea is crap 
Sry, sometimes i cant figgure this out on my own, and i think that it is good
Just Forget it ^^
Hey carlo,
would you possibly consider, to reintroduce some good looking C-Operators?
like:
+=, -=, /=, %=, ++, -- //c# Operator:
(a = b) ? b := 20 : b := -1; translates to ---> if a = b then b := 20 else b := -1;
IMO, it s often pretty annoying to wirte: inc(a) or a := a + 1;
++, – is inc(), dec()
? : becomes if then (which works in expressions too): var x = if a = b then c else d;
The rest: No.
What I actually was desperately looking for is:
A NEGATIVE generic-constraint, for instance:
“where T is not String, T is not char[]”
I know that .NET doesnt Support this, is it so hard to implement it on the Compiler-Level?
Possible but no platform supports it. Also i don’t see a widely used use case
Couldnt you do it at least for Island?
And i have such a usecase for my formatable objects, i just want to exclude 3 types from the generic-constraint?
And you cant know always at the Moment when to use such a nice Feature, ist often those what makes a good language
Indeed but i don’t think this feature is going to be something we’ll be doing.
But why not?
What are ur concerns about that, except of Course the potencial amount of work for that Compiler-lvl, but as i said before, i honestly cant understand why this is so hard to do, when you have the “where” logic in your Compiler-Code, that you just Need to take this and negate it, or something like that^^
Ofc, it can be more complex as i think but this i ask better you^^
things are rarely as trivial as they may seem. especially when dealing with generics, and with 4 entirely different platforms, two of which impose their own generic subsystem that we need to work within.
Ok, i got this 
Was just an idea, at the end ofc you guys decide whether to implement it or not.
Ok, i saw another, IMO, which is bad-looking-convention.
class method Dowork() -----> why not: static method Dowork()?
I mean, this mix-up can someone, somewhere be pretty confusing, when it happens more often.
A Little more consequent Syntax would be better i think, it’s the same with: var a: new Array of int32(1000) with var a : new Int32[1000];
Facit:
My Suggestion would be, choose for each one of These concepts, 1 Syntax and stay with it.
Because Pascal uses class as a modifier for that, not static.[quote=“shpend_hoti, post:54, topic:12295”]
: var a: new Array of int32(1000) with var a : new Int32[1000];
[/quote]
not sure what you mean here. Either you use:
var x := new array of Int32(1000);`
or
var x := new Int32[1000];
Both work.
But cant you make it internally class method… and on the outside the developer uses static?
and
Yes this is what i mean, this double.equal-syntax, why not just ONE of the Syntax, why allowing 10000 Options how to write it, this Problem i think has C++. you can write totally what and how you want, thats on one side very powerful, but on the looking-convention-side it is really bad for others reading Code.
The next is Methodsignature:
use, block, or method or Func<…>, Action,
i mean, why not just ONE of them and everywhere you are able to do everything with this ONE Syntax, not multiples. But currently, every developer has differnet code-styles which perverts often the look and makes it more difficuilt to read and with that to understand 
IMHO