From virtual extension methods to mixins

James Shaw js102 at
Tue Jul 10 00:06:47 PDT 2012

On 10 July 2012 02:02, Brian Goetz <brian.goetz at> wrote:

> Yes, this is what I call the "virtual field pattern."  It seems perfectly
> reasonable to me, because the classes that mix you in have to consent by
> providing the {get,set}Peeker methods.  (Also, by the nature of interface
> method merging, it addresses the diamond problem as if all base classes
> were "virtual".)
Can you explain what you mean by 'diamond problem'?

More information about the lambda-dev mailing list