[4395] in java-interest
Re: interfaces
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (satoh-HAL-osamu)
Thu Dec 21 17:31:32 1995
From: satoh-HAL-osamu <satoo@pfu.fujitsu.co.jp>
To: arnold@suneast.East.Sun.COM (Ken Arnold - Sun Labs)
Cc: java-interest@webrunner.neato.org
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 Dec 1995 15:04:02 EST."
<9512212004.AA07425@cocolat.East.Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 05:41:45 +0900
Thanks for your quick reply, Ken.
> A purely abstract class (one that has *only* abstract methods) is hard
> to distinguish from an interface, but if that's what you're producing,
> you should produce an interface instead.
I think so, too :-)
> Some people have suggested that you be able to say "class Foo
> implements Bar" where Bar is another class, meaning that it supports
> all the methods, but inherits no implementation. That would be
> consistent with the language, but I don't think it's under
> consideration, currently. If you think this would be a good idea,
> submit it as a requested enhnancement.
Again, I don't want to describe "implements aClass".
I just want to describe an INTERFACE which has some methods
but never refer variables.
Oh, it came to my head!
It may cause collisions of implementations in class name
space. It's most common problem of multi-inheritance, I
think. That's why java doesn't have such features, right?
Okay, I DO describe classes use interfaces to provide "high
level interfaces" .... *sigh*
Regards,
Osamu
-
This message was sent to the java-interest mailing list
Info: send 'help' to java-interest-request@java.sun.com
