• Russ Lewis (14/14) Apr 15 2002 Ok, so this is a weird idea, very likely even a bad one - but thought
• Pavel Minayev (7/15) Apr 15 2002 Not sure as well. Interface is a contract, nothing more. It is not

Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:

Ok, so this is a weird idea, very likely even a bad one - but thought
I'd throw it out:

What if we allowed constructors (and destructors) in interfaces?  The
interface could only call functions that it defines, but it might be
useful for something, not sure...

Anybody got any good ideas how to use this?

Anybody got any good criticisms of it?  Complexity, surely.  How to
handle a multiply-included interface (included in definition of both a
class and its super class).  Others?

--
The Villagers are Online! villagersonline.com

.[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ]
.[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ]
?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ]

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone omen.ru> writes:

"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> wrote in message
news:3CBB36E4.8597D9F5 deming-os.org...
 Ok, so this is a weird idea, very likely even a bad one - but thought
 I'd throw it out:

 What if we allowed constructors (and destructors) in interfaces?  The
 interface could only call functions that it defines, but it might be
 useful for something, not sure...

Not sure as well. Interface is a contract, nothing more. It is not
supposed to contain any code.

 Anybody got any good criticisms of it?  Complexity, surely.  How to
 handle a multiply-included interface (included in definition of both a
 class and its super class).  Others?

What if you have two interfaces with destructors, and your class
implements both? Destructor occupies special slot in the vtable,
you can't have two that simple.