On Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at 02:49 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote: > Which implies, I assume, that "interface" is not the default state of > a class method, e.g. we do need something like "method foo() is > interface { ... }" to declare any given method
Flippin' hell, never mind. You're almost certainly talking about a style like: interface Vehicle { method foo () { ... } method bar () { ... } } - or - class Vehicle is interface { ... } .... in which case an "interface" is specified as a type of abstract class, not an attribute of a given method... I was thinking of something like class Vehicle { method foo () is interface { ... } method bar () is interface { ... } method zap () is private { ... } } .... in which a specific base class could define "obligatory" method signatures for any eventual subclasses. Never mind on that one, I've been thinking too much about a different problem. MikeL