Jess Holle wrote: > One could call such "interfaces" "traits" instead with a new keyword > or such. > > I don't really see /any/ benefit from this, though. > > I'd have full blown no-holds-barred multiple inheritence, but it's too > late for that for Java. I have /no/ fear or loathing of diamond > inheritence -- as you say it is easy to require the join point of the > diamond to override to remove ambiguities. > > Without fields or non-public methods, traits are crippled. > Introducing yet another different thing besides classes and interfaces > just sounds even more confusing to me. > > From having innumerable cases where I wanted to mix in an interface > /with/ a default implementation, I'd love to just add default > implementation and non-public methods to interfaces. Of course having just classes and no distinct "interface" would have been good in my book too.
-- Jess Holle --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" 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/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
