On 01/20/11 01:01, Mandeep Singh Brar wrote: > "This would be easily resolved if interfaces were known to be Objects. " > > But shouldnt this be the case, because there would be nothing called as an > Interface which can be pointed to; it would be an Object which is > implementing an > interface which is being pointed to. So shouldnt Interfaces be Objects too. > Otherwise, wouldnt it defeat the purpose of having Object as the base class > for > everything. > > Thanks > Mandeep
There are actually Interfaces which don't necessarily imply inheritance from Object. The canonical example being IUnknown and it's own descendants, used for interacting with COM libraries. Another example -- as I understand the implementation at least -- are 'extern(C++)' interfaces, which are really API declarations for C++ classes. That said, these are special cases, and I would expect the assertion that interface <- Object to be true in all other cases. -- Chris N-S