Austin Hastings wrote: > There's two ways to look at that. One way is to say: "I'm going to > define an interface as being this OTHER thing minus a method." That > seems like a positive construction, and supporting it might be > desirable. > > The other way is to say: "Nobody knows what methods call what other > methods in their implementation (nor should we know). Therefore, > removing methods is forbidden. If you have a conflict of methods, alias > them and provide support in the knowledge that any component C<role> > that requires the method may call it internally."
Or you could say that when you "exclude" a method, what you're really doing is hiding it from everything external to where it's declared, while leaving it available to be called internally. Method exclusion would be more like declaring a private method in C++ than actually removing it from the class or role. This means that a method wouldn't be provided to a class that C<does> its role but excludes it itself, and thus it wouldn't be used to satisfy the requirements of any other roles that the class C<does>. ===== Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
