Andrew Haley wrote: > Out of interest (and please forgive me if this has already been > discussed at length) why have dummy methods at all? Wouldn't it be > better to have a compile time failure for unimplemented methods?
I think so, but sometimes (e.g. when implementing interfaces or extending abstract classes), you're required to provide the methods, but I agree that not having the unimplemented method is the cleanest solution. Regards, Jeroen _______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
