Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Object orientation question
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 08:35:58 +0100
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <cbbjmvFjvvcU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <0b94f856-9631-48ee-8d2d-94055d79cfd6@googlegroups.com> <m2mb82$cef$1@dont-email.me> <cb80jkFmoa9U1@mid.individual.net> <slrnm4upel.fp3.avl@login.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net 9pziccDBVGQj7LnnMaRg9Q1tRTbGKLr8rtdkV9lCjR1KVPtZ8=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MMgHwCF0JuyC75YYz77xfiD2mJ8=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
In-Reply-To: <slrnm4upel.fp3.avl@login.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:30231

On 28.10.2014 10:45, Andreas Leitgeb wrote:
> Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> On 27.10.2014 21:51, Eric Sosman wrote:
>>>       Clearly, the generated code is the same: AdditionInterface extends
>>> BaseInterface, therefore any class implementing AdditionInterface also
>>> necessarily implements BaseInterface.  If the class fails to provide a
>>> method specified by BaseInterface, the code won't compile.  So the
>>> question is purely about readability and style.
>> This is not fully correct: if you check with reflection you will see
>> that there is a difference in what Class.getInterfaces() returns.
>
> You don't even need reflection to notice a difference:
>
> interface A { ... }               |  interface A { ... }
> interface B { ... }               |  interface B extends A { ... }
> class C implements A,B { ... }    |  class C implements B { ... }

That is not the situation I was referring to.  In both _my_ cases B 
extends A.  The difference is just in the declaration what C implements.

Cheers

	robert