------- Comment #7 from  2009-01-20 16:57 -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> I would propose that it should be an error to implement an interface with
> private protection.  It makes no sense, as an interface is used where you do
> not know the implementation, but a private symbol can only be used in the file
> it's declared in, so you *should* know the implementation by looking at the
> file.

Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, but it certainly does to me (see my
examples). I believe I've brought enough examples where private and package
methods are desired to have polymorphic behavior.


Reply via email to