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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #35893

Re: "implements" does not mean "implements"

Show all headers | View raw

Am 11.11.2016 um 03:05 schrieb Arne Vajhøj:
> 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.
[snip]
> So m is in some sense present in C even though the
> actual implementation have to be supplied by a
> sub class.
>
> Arne

I like to say that interfaces specify behaviors of objects, not 
properties of classes. Saying that C implements A amounts to saying that 
any o that is an instance of C behaves like an A. It has nothing to do 
with what methods get implemented in C.

I would agree that this is terminological hairsplitting without 
relevance to Java.

-- Sebastian

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