Default method survey results

Peter Levart peter.levart at
Thu Aug 16 09:08:01 PDT 2012

On Thursday, August 16, 2012 05:27:08 PM Peter Levart wrote:
> So we already have one type of methods (abstract) that play differently 
> depending on where they are defined in (interface or class).
> So do we need two types of methods with a body: concrete / default - each
> one  designated for a specific container interface / class, just to
> indicate how they play in the hierarchy?

I don't think we need a 3rd type of virtual methods (default). I think it's 
easier to reason when default == concrete.

But do we need a mandatory modifier on the methods with-a-body of the 
interface? Yes, for consistency's sake. But then this same modifier should also 
become an optional modifier on concrete class methods. For consistency's sake.

Should this modifier be called "default" ? I don't know.


More information about the lambda-dev mailing list