There's always been Runnable, yes, but there hasn't always been the cultural emphasis on composition rather than derivation. In other words, I agree it was a mistake, but it was a mistake born of its time, and not one that would be as likely to be repeated today.
Inner classes certainly exist -- they're just broken (only capture final variables). The sense of unreality to which you refer is just an implementation technique, and only visible if you peek below the covers of reality. :) That's true of most any bit of programming semantics you choose to examine that closely. On Oct 22, 5:15 pm, DanH <[email protected]> wrote: > But there's always been a Runnable, and it's no more difficult to > subclass a Runnable than a Thread. Inner classes made it easier (if > more obscure) to define your subclasses, but didn't change the basic > nature of the beast. (In fact, in reality inner classes don't exist.) > > On Oct 22, 7:04 pm, Bob Kerns <[email protected]> wrote: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
