• d-bugmail puremagic.com Jan 07 2009
• d-bugmail puremagic.com Jan 07 2009
• d-bugmail puremagic.com Jan 07 2009
• d-bugmail puremagic.com Jan 07 2009
• d-bugmail puremagic.com Jan 07 2009
• d-bugmail puremagic.com Jan 07 2009

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2565

           Summary: Interface methods need to be implemented even if base
                    class already have them impelemented
           Product: D
           Version: 2.023
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: bugzilla digitalmars.com
        ReportedBy: 2korden gmail.com


interface IFoo
{
        int foo();
}

class FooImpl : IFoo
{
        int foo() {
                return 42;
        }
}

class Foo : public FooImpl, public IFoo
{
}

void main()
{
        Foo foo = new Foo();
}

Error: class A.Foo interface function IFoo.foo is not implemented

I believe the following code sample should just work. Otherwise, one have to
explicitly override all the interface methods, which is redundant and adds
runtime cost.

It could be related to bug 2539.


-- 

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2565





------- Comment #1 from shro8822 vandals.uidaho.edu  2009-01-07 14:38 -------
This is working as designed. It chould be converted to "enhancement" or closed
as invalid


-- 

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2565


2korden gmail.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement




------- Comment #2 from 2korden gmail.com  2009-01-07 14:48 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
 This is working as designed. It chould be converted to "enhancement" or closed
 as invalid
 


Okay, but I didn't find it in docs.
I know it is not a convincing argument, but C# allows that.


-- 

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2565





------- Comment #3 from smjg iname.com  2009-01-07 15:13 -------
*** Bug 2539 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2565


shro8822 vandals.uidaho.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|enhancement                 |normal




------- Comment #4 from shro8822 vandals.uidaho.edu  2009-01-07 15:22 -------

It doesn't say it explicitly but it does say:

"All interface functions must be defined in a class that inherits from that
interface:"

and

"A reimplemented interface must implement all the interface functions, it does
not inherit them from a super class:"

Could be better.

BTW: if you alias an existing function than it will fill in an interface. I
think.


-- 

d-bugmail puremagic.com writes:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2565


smjg iname.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |smjg iname.com
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement
            Summary|Interface methods need to be|Should be able to use an
                   |implemented even if base    |inherited method as
                   |class already have them     |interface implementation
                   |impelemented                |




------- Comment #5 from smjg iname.com  2009-01-07 15:23 -------
I think the reason for this design is to prevent accidental implementation of
an interface by an inherited method with completely different semantics.

So, AISI, it should be possible to use an inherited method that happens to have
the required name as an interface implementation, including in the case where
the inherited method is final, but the means should be explicit.

Issue 502 already describes one possibility.


--