C#

interface A { }
public class B { }
interface C : B, A
{

}

BobJanova wrote:

Multiple implementation (of interfaces) is fine, though.

Bastard Programmer from Hell

public interface IMyInterface
{
  void DoSomething();
}

public interface IAnotherInterface
{
  void DoSomethingElse();
}

There you go - you have now implemented two interfaces in the same class.
<div class="signature"><small><p>Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads</p>
<p><a href="http://peteohanlon.wordpress.com">My blog</a> | <a href="http://www.codeproject.com/script/Articles/MemberArticles.aspx?amid=213147">My articles</a> | <a href="http://peteohanlon.wordpress.com/moxaml-power-toys/">MoXAML PowerToys</a> | <a href="http://www.molosoft.com/">Mole 2010 - debugging made easier</a> - my favourite utility</p></small></div>

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

solution to a problem that has since moved on to a better solution

PIEBALDconsult wrote:

no benefit of using queues

RobCroll wrote:

in remote locations

gmhanna wrote:

I'm concerned about the properties getting overlaid by the next caller

public sealed class Singleton {
    private static Singleton _instance = null;
    private static readonly object singletonLock = new object();

    private Singleton() {}

    public static Singleton Instance {
        get {
            lock (singletonLock) {
                if (_instance == null) {
                    _instance = new Singleton();
                }
                return _instance;
            }
        }
    }
}