On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Neal Gafter schrieb:
> > I think javac is acting correctly. It requires that every abstract
> > method have an implementation visible to the programmer.
>
> is there any specification on this? I mean I understand that there has
> to be an implementation, but that is has to be visible to the
> programmer? It doesn't really fit my thinking.
>
Yes, the language specification. The "synthetic" methods don't play into the
language specification, so they don't qualify as implementations.
> Also in the case
>
> interface A<T> {
> T foo();
> }
>
> abstract class B implements A<String>{
> public String foo(){
> return null;
> }
> }
>
> class C extends B {}
>
> how does javac know there is a visible implementation?
Because it can see it there in class B.
> So I am just "lucky" that javac does not check this?
Yes.
> If I have a tool that adds an interface and the implementation for the
> methods in the interface for the class, then I cannot make that
> synthetic even though there is no source representation for it and that
> means it should be synthetic? Or is there a way to keep the methods
> synthetic and avoid javac complaining about the methods not being
> implemented?
Synthetic methods "don't exist" from a language perspective - they are
implementation artifacts only. If you want the interface to be implemented,
there must be something that guides what will be in the body of the
implementation. What implementation is it adding?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM
Languages" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
