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

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

Re: "implements" does not mean "implements"

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

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

#35890 — Re: "implements" does not mean "implements"

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

[toc] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web