On 7/23/2012 10:57 PM, Arne Vajh?j wrote:
On 7/23/2012 10:16 PM, Eric Sosman wrote:
On 7/23/2012 7:58 PM, Arne Vajh?j wrote:
And all arguments seems related to extends not implements, so
I m not convinced that extending it to interface methods was
wise.
A separate @Implements annotation instead of @Override might
have been better for interfaces. But what should one do about
abstract methods in abstract superclasses? Are those @Override
or @Implements, or maybe @Concretizes? And why should the class
with the actual implementation care about the distinction? And
what about concrete methods *intended* to be overridden, as in
MouseAdapter? @ProFormaOverrides?
Looks like fodder for a "whichness of the why" debate.
I think abstract methods should be treated like other methods in
classes.
The abstract class could later introduce an implementation.
We know that the interface will never.
Ah, but what about
abstract class Super implements ActionListener {
protected void helperMethod() { ... }
... // maybe an actionPerformed() here, maybe not
}
class NowWhat extends Super {
@WhatAnnotationGoesHere // ?
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent evt) {
...
}
}
In the NowWhat class, does actionPerformed() "implement" the
method required by the ActionListener interface, or does it
"concretize" the abstract actionPerformed() method of the Super
class? Or does it "override" Super's concrete actionPerformed()
method (not shown)? What if Super explicitly declares an abstract
actionPerformed() method?