Ary Borenszweig wrote:
You wouldn't have to break your head if implementing an interface meant
"having the methods declared in that interface". No error should appear
in C2.
What's the rationale behind this behaviour?
Naming collisions and different library versions. In practice, I suspect
th
Haruki Shigemori escribió:
(1)
interface A {void a();}
interface B : A {}
(2)
interface B {void a();}
If both interfaces of B are the *same* when paying attention to interface B,
I think that the next code is invalid-accept about class C2.
Because class C2 do not have a method "void a(){}".
ht
(1)
interface A {void a();}
interface B : A {}
(2)
interface B {void a();}
If both interfaces of B are the *same* when paying attention to interface B,
I think that the next code is invalid-accept about class C2.
Because class C2 do not have a method "void a(){}".
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.
