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.
On the other hand, you can start writing the docs & 'prototypes' for a class without having to fully implement everything. Depends on the point of view, I guess.
And of course, there is the 'you can at least compile it using classpath, even if you can't run it' aspect, that plays a big role for debian and similar 'free software buildable by free tools' efforts, afaik.
cheers, dalibor topic
_______________________________________________ Classpath mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
