Interfaces without implementation are like a day without sunshine
ncannasse at motion-twin.com
Tue Oct 24 00:19:30 PDT 2006
> We are continuing to find this a useful structuring tool, enough so
> that my users are complaining that 'interface' and 'implements' are
> the wrong terms. They want 'interfaces with implementation' to be
> called 'traits' (because that is how they intuitively think about
> them) and that makes me realize that 'implements' should be
> 'inherits' (or something similar).
> I don't like the idea of having 'interfaces' _and_ 'traits'. That
> seems overly complex. It seems to me that an interface can be
> described just as well by a trait with required (abstract) methods.
True... as long as you allow multiple traits inheritance.
What would be the differences with mixins then ?
More information about the Es4-discuss