Stolen from a oo reference site (who's URL I no longer have handy): "An object interface--or simply interface--defines methods that can be implemented by a class. Interfaces are declared like classes, but cannot be directly instantiated and do not have their own method definitions. Rather, it is the responsibility of any class that supports an interface to provide implementations for the interface's methods. A variable of an interface type can reference an object whose class implements that interface; however, only methods declared in the interface can be called using such a variable."
That goes with my understanding as interfaces being one more level of abstraction from abstract classes. That is they define the rules for the classes that implement them, but not any code (where an abstract class can implement code). I guess my understanding of an interface is wrong? The reason I want to use an interface is to define a preset definition of what my classes should implement when they are designed using specific design patterns. Gavin On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 03:17:59 +0100, Jochem Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jason Barnett wrote: > > Gavin Roy wrote: > > ... > > > >>Is this a bug, or a new intended behavior? > >> > >>Gavin > > > > > > To get the long answer you can search through the php.internals list for > > this topic. The short answer is: this is the new intended behavior. > > > > the short reason(ing) is it doesn't make sense to implement an interface > on something that isn't an object (i.e. a class). assume object == car, and > class == idea, an idea can't have a steering wheel interface because its not > a 'thing' (as such). > > if you have a collection of singleton objects that all implement a public > interface then should those objects be singletons at all? > > -- > PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
