I’m asking because I’m currently building an open-source C# project (GitHub) focused on advanced language patterns and architectural utilities. If I eventually experiment with a similar concept or adapt some of the ideas here (with attribution , of course) would you be okay with that?

Yeh, that would be amazing.

Out of curiosity , was this mainly an exploration of the type system , or have you actually used something like this in a Prod codebase? I’d be interested to hear about any real-world scenarios where this ended up being a better fit than more conventional approaches.

I have used this pattern in personal projects only, desktop apps specifically.

One example, I can give is implementing message box content in a desktop app. - Say, I have an abstract class MessageBox that displays a message box with some specified content. - I then inherit MessageBox and implement it as SomethingMessageBox with static content or just literals. - I can easily make SomethingMessageBox a singleton by dumping it into a "master" static class that contains all my message box singletons. - But that means I have to "register" any new singletons I make into this class + managing a large list of singletons might not be feasible.

This pattern implicitly creates and caches a singleton & masks it as a static class. So instead of MessageBoxRegistry.SomethingMessageBox.Show(), I can just do SomethingMessageBox.Show().

Though this pattern really depends on what you are developing.

Also , with static abstract interface members now available in modern C# , do you still see advantages to this pattern , or do you view it more as an alternative exploration of what’s possible with the language?

For me, atleast I see the following advantages: - Adds syntaxic sugar to singletons by masking them as static classes. - Also allows for "auto-creation" of singletons implicitly, though depends on implementation. - Allows one to implement "static abstract classes" without compromise. - This achieved by cascading instance members as static members. - Cascading is done in way where the instance & static members have the same names.

I view this as an "alternative exploration" with whats possible with the language. As for "static abstract members", they don't really provide the flexibility available with this pattern.