On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 18:50 +0100, Didier 'Ptitjes' Villevalois wrote: > Hi Maciej, > > Glad to see you are fine. And happy new year btw. > > On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 18:35 +0100, Maciej Piechotka wrote: > > As there is support for virtual functions in interfaces I'd like to get > > comments regarding moving some implementation from abstract classes to > > interfaces. > > > > The methods proposed to change: > > - Should have implementation based on different methods > > - Do not introduce any additional fields etc. > > Some classes (AbstractMultiSet) will stay largely intact. > > Could you point to the specific methods you would like move in > interfaces ? I guess this would simplify the discussion. > For example from AbstractCollection to Collection: - is_empty - to_array (if possible) - add_all - contains_all - remove_all - retain_all - element_type But not: - read_only_view > > Pros: > > - Allowing to reuse of implementations that cannot inherit from > > abstract classes. > > Do you speak for any potential external implementers of gee's > interfaces ? (which is, btw, not currently a real concern for gee) If > yes, are there specific use cases you have in mind ? > > Or do you speak for the internal implementations gee provides ? If yes > what exactly do we gain here ? > External Regards
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part