Andy Clement wrote: > > I see what you are saying though, that by ensuring there is a complete > implementation of all the missing methods, AspectJ could consider the > type no longer abstract, but I would need to think about it a little > more. I'm not sure 'abstract' is only used when there are methods > that are abstract, there are other situations when you might want to > use it where, for example, you just want to prevent construction of > that type.
Thanks Andy. I'm sure there are other purposes of "abstract". But in my case, I consciously explicitly want my abstract class to de-abstract-ize itself. i.e. I'm simply using it to avoid typecasts while using @AspectJ annotations. And I'm still happy even if this de-abstract-izing will only be supported in build-time weaving. Yes I'm using it with annotation style (there's no problem with code style here). Shouldn't this be something that AspectJ supports? ----- http://www.Soluvas.com/ Soluvas - Making eCommerce Work for You -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/How-to-remove-%22abstract%22-with-AspectJ--tp27617645p27632734.html Sent from the AspectJ - users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list [email protected] https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
