|
so maybe sealed methods on the interface? They are part of the interface but can't be implemented.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer a sealed interface. It ends in much less work 
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
and unsealed wine or scotch
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
|
|
|
|
|
Great, just what we need, IGit and ITfs.
|
|
|
|
|
Is this the programming technique video that Emily Ratajkowski was in?
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's a short article; there is a picture or two, but no video.
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
I weep for the world when you can't even make a good risque innuendo anymore...
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure you can. You just haven't.
|
|
|
|
|
No, you are...
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
Interface default methods is a pointless "feature".
Abstract classes are infinitely more useful than interfaces. I rarely use/create interfaces (I usually only use them when some .net feature demands it, such as IDisposable or INotifyPropertyChange. In either case, you still have to implement the abstract methods/properties, or the interface methods.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Interface default methods is a pointless "feature".
Thank you for getting my point.
Quote: Abstract classes are infinitely more useful than interfaces.
Absolutely!
Quote: I rarely use/create interfaces (I usually only use them when some .net feature demands it, such as IDisposable or INotifyPropertyChange. In either case, you still have to implement the abstract methods/properties, or the interface methods.
My personal exception to that rule is IComparable<t>, which I frequently implement, so that I can make collections of classes sortable and searchable.
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
I like interfaces, but I find myself deriving abstract classes from the interface that I derive the implementation classes. I implement the common stuff in the abstract class and leave the rest abstract.
This allows me to create multiple base abstract classes for different hierarchies of things that all implement the base interface, but have different common functionality.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe there's something about C# interfaces I don't get, but in general interfaces are extremely useful. I dunno about this particular aspect of them being discussed here, but in C++ at least they are crucial. Without them, you can't add polymorphic functionality to classes outside of the straight line inheritance mechanism. Do they not work anything like that in C#?
Explorans limites defectum
|
|
|
|
|
I like it. Implement only the methods you really need and not bother about the rest. In Java I have listener interfaces with tons of methods that I will never need but have to put some empty stub code because I have to.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I like it. Implement only the methods you really need and not bother about the rest. In Java I have listener interfaces with tons of methods that I will never need but have to put some empty stub code because I have to.
Am I missing something, or are you stuck with some badly designed Java classes? IMO, for the most part, an abstract class should provide a default implementation of every method, perhaps marked as virtual. With that being said, I have one abstract class of my own devising that has one abstract method on it, which must, of course, be implemented by every heir. Since the method takes an enumerated type as its argument, and its work requires evaluating that enumeration by way of a switch block, the base class cannot implement it.
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
Well, interfaces are used widely to implement event handlers of various devices.
Usually they define methods for many events:
public interface FlyOnTheWallListener
onConnect, onDisconnect, onReceive, onConnectionClose, onVendorCompanyWentBroke etc ect.
They cover every possible event.
I need to respond to two events and will have to implement that interface.
It's just how it is sometimes.
modified 20-Oct-19 21:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
They also allow you to extend the functionality of the entire Interface hierarchy of classes by adding new methods with implementations.
Of course, you can already do this with Extension Methods, which allows you to extend things in the context of what your are doing, depending which extension methods you include in your project in your using directives.
I can see use cases for both, but I really like Extension Methods for the ability to extend a class without having to do anything to the class itself. Very SOLID.
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
|
|
|
|
|
SO that's one interview question killed ... lol 
|
|
|
|
|
One of the basic missing features of C# / Java is that you cannot inherit from multiple classes. If you could have multiple inheritance, you could get name clashes where different members of the set of base classes have the same member names or even have classes derived from the same lower level base class (this is known as the diamond problem); either of these scenarios could get name clashes, which is why C# does not support it However, other languages (inc C++?) get over it by explicitly stating which base class's method they are accessing. C# already has mechanisms for resolving name clashes in interfaces. So, converting interfaces into faux abstract classes is a simple way of resolving the diamond problem.
It's about time this feature came onboard. I can't be the only one who adds comments to their interfaces giving code for typical implementation of the interface methods. Having the code outside of the comments would greatly simplify implementing interfaces. OK, the new feature is a kludge and a back-door way of creating multiple base class inheritance; but it is simple, effective, and backwards compatible.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: t's about time this feature came onboard. I can't be the only one who adds comments to their interfaces giving code for typical implementation of the interface methods. Having the code outside of the comments would greatly simplify implementing interfaces. OK, the new feature is a kludge and a back-door way of creating multiple base class inheritance; but it is simple, effective, and backwards compatible.
Well stated! 
David A. Gray
Delivering Solutions for the Ages, One Problem at a Time
Interpreting the Fundamental Principle of Tabular Reporting
|
|
|
|
|
In the lounge? Really?? 
|
|
|
|
|
One of my favorite things about C# as opposed to C++ is that they don't get wrapped around the axle over adding useful features that piss off the language dilettantes.
This is a useful feature. It lets you implement an interface change piecemeal, rather than forcing you to implement the change in one great steaming pile. You can even have the default implementation perform an assert to help ensure you've caught all cases.
The C++ folks would flagellate themselves for years over this, there would be dozens of half-baked implementations with wildly conflicting implementations, and when the standard was finally issued, no one would care.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
