On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[email protected]> wrote:
> That brought up yet another issue...if the implementation of the
> method comes *above* the interface, like in the following example, we
> will assume the ancestor class's Ruby method is going to get picked
> up. Because we have the interface module in the hierarchy, that's not
> the case, so we need to ensure we bind the method below the interface
> if that's the nearest signature.
Next wrinkle...if you have an interface included twice, and a
superclass implements it, we won't see that impl. So, given:
public interface Int1 {
public void foo();
}
public interface Int2 extends Int1 {
public void bar();
}
Ruby:
class ImplemntsInt1
include Int1
def foo; end
end
class ImplementsInt2 < ImplementsInt1
include Int2
def bar; end
end
The inheritance chain right now ends up looking like
[ImplementsInt2, Int2, Int1, ImplementsInt1, Int1, ...]
because we add all interfaces for a given class to its ancestor list.
This could just be structurally wrong, but I don't have a solution yet.
- Charlie
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
