Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #35890

Re: "implements" does not mean "implements"

From	Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject	Re: "implements" does not mean "implements"
Date	2016-11-10 19:39 +0100
Organization	MB-NET.NET for Open-News-Network e.V.
Message-ID	<o02esp$sqo$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> (permalink)
References	<implements-20161110014035@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>

Show all headers | View raw

On 10.11.16 01.45, Stefan Ram wrote:
>    Just a small thought I had on the train today:
>
>    "implements" does not always mean "implements".
>
>    For example, this compiles:
>
> interface A { void m(); }
>
> abstract class C implements A { public abstract void m(); }

>    C does not implement A, yet is says »C implements A«.

Abstract classes may have incomplete interface implementations. However 
any derived, non-abstract class must implement the missing methods in 
the same way than other abstract methods of the base class.

So any existing instance of C will implement A.

Marcel

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: "implements" does not mean "implements" Marcel Mueller <news.5.maazl@spamgourmet.org> - 2016-11-10 19:39 +0100

csiph-web