On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Private methods are non-virtual, so I'm pretty sure they are not supposed to > be allowed in an interface. > > But I suppose private could also mean private final, in which case you have > to provide an implementation for foo in the interface.
In section 6.9.1 of "The D Programming Language" about Non-Virtual Interfaces, there is an example (p214) of an interface which defines two private methods without implementation. But now that you point it out, that code also fails the linker for me. Is that book out of sync with the implementation? > This would be in line with the error message. It is true that if I replace "private" with "final" I get the same error message. That is also puzzling to me; I would expect a final method in an interface without an implementation to be a *compiler* error, since there is no way anyone else can implement it. Is there? Mike
