Interfaces without implementation are like a day without sunshine
P T Withington
ptw at pobox.com
Tue Oct 24 05:08:07 PDT 2006
On 2006-10-24, at 03:19 EDT, Nicolas Cannasse wrote:
>> 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 ?
Yes, we allow multiple inheritance of traits. Our traits are the
same as mixins, it just seems that trait is a more modern term (in
line with classes implementing an ontology, as opposed to modeling
ice cream flavors).
More information about the Es4-discuss