|Sent on:||Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:56 AM|
On Wed,[masked] at 02:20 -0400, Alex Anderson wrote: > It's a shame there's not a third option in the survey - if a method > body is declared in an interface, then surely it could be understood > implicitly to be a default implementation? Indeed. But I wanted a fourth option: Don't do either, just use an abstract class. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: [masked] voip: sip:[address removed] 41 Buckmaster Road m: [masked] xmpp: [address removed] London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
This email message originally included an attachment.