Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #35891

Re: "implements" does not mean "implements"

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/9/2016 7:45 PM, 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(); }

This is more terminology than Java.

It is correct that C does not have an implementation for
the method m.

But I think that you can say that C implements A anyway.

Reason:
* with no m in C you would get a compile error
* non-abstract methods in C can use m

So m is in some sense present in C even though the
actual implementation have to be supplied by a
sub class.

Arne

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

Thread

Re: "implements" does not mean "implements" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-11-10 21:05 -0500
  Re: "implements" does not mean "implements" Sebastian <nowhere@nirvana.org> - 2016-11-12 11:22 +0100
    Re: "implements" does not mean "implements" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-11-12 08:50 -0500
      Re: "implements" does not mean "implements" Sebastian <nowhere@nirvana.org> - 2016-11-13 22:30 +0100
        Re: "implements" does not mean "implements" Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2016-11-14 19:48 -0500

csiph-web