When I invoke object->Foobar() I want to invoke the appropriate method for this object, from whatever class that might be. This is exactly what's happening in the kernel here.
When I actually intend to call the method from ClassA, I would either call something like object->base->Foobar() or ClassA->Foobar(object). Note how this is the very example that you are replying to: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=1718627440
Yes, you claimed it is like a static member function, I don't think it can be.
> The proper way to implement static functions is through static dispatch
Yes, but we are talking about dynamic dispatch here.
To quote your earlier comment:
> which is most unlike a vtable since static member functions are never in vtables
You conclude it isn't a vtable, I conclude, it's not a static member function, because it uses dynamic dispatch.
I don't think we actually disagree on how and when to use static and dynamic dispatch.
Omitting the this pointer also breaks inheritance, since hypothetical child classes would not be able to override the definition while using the this pointer. Having to edit the parent class to be able to do that is not how OOP works.
This is not OOP nor is it intended to be.
No it is not. Unless you can show me a virtual overridden static member function.
> since hypothetical child classes would not be able to override the definition while using the this pointer
Yes! That's the entire idea here. The non-hypothetical, but indeed existing, child classes are not able to access the object. This is to prescribe potential behaviour for child implementations.