On Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at 02:49 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> Which implies, I assume, that "interface" is not the default state of
> a class method, e.g. we do need something like "method foo() is
> interface { ... }" to declare any given method
Flippin' hell, never mind. You're almost certainly talking about a
style like:
interface Vehicle {
method foo () { ... }
method bar () { ... }
}
- or -
class Vehicle is interface {
...
}
.... in which case an "interface" is specified as a type of abstract
class, not an attribute of a given method... I was thinking of
something like
class Vehicle {
method foo () is interface { ... }
method bar () is interface { ... }
method zap () is private { ... }
}
.... in which a specific base class could define "obligatory" method
signatures for any eventual subclasses. Never mind on that one, I've
been thinking too much about a different problem.
MikeL
