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

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #35895

Re: "implements" does not mean "implements"

Show all headers | View raw

Am 12.11.2016 um 14:50 schrieb Arne Vajhøj:
> On 11/12/2016 5:22 AM, Sebastian wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Behavior of objects and properties of classes should have some
> relationship.
>
> But just realized something that I think matches well
> with you way of thinking.
>
> interface A { void m(); }
>
> abstract class C implements A { }
>
> class Foobar extends C { public void m() { } }
>
> actually compiles - it is not necessary to have an abstract m in C.
>
> Arne

yes, indeed, the methods are already abstract in C by virtue of the 
interface.

By the way, a typical use of such an idiom may be where C is some 
abstract class that offers some help in implementing A, or adds related 
behavior, so that C wouldn't really be an abstraction in its own right, 
but would exist only for purposes of code-reuse. In Java 8, such usage 
could be replaced with default methods in interfaces.

-- 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