On 2011-06-02 12:01, Michael Shulman wrote: > 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?
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4542 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2051 - Jonathan M Davis
