I have a couple of questions about abstract with default implementation
maurizio.cimadamore at oracle.com
Sat Dec 17 02:37:34 PST 2011
On 17/12/11 05:41, Robert Field wrote:
> I don't believe the abstractness of default methods is completely nailed
> down. But our model of it for the current implementation is that
> default methods are not abstract (even though they are in an
> interface). Two possible models: (1) now three options:
> abstract/concrete/default; or (2) default methods are concrete.
We recently switched to a model where the compiler considered extension
methods as abstract methods (just because they were in an interface) to
a different model that considers extension methods as a 'new kind' of
non-abstract methods. That's why the compiler has started to bark with
the 'abstractness' of extension with a body.
More information about the lambda-dev