Re: Proposal: Abstract types for OOC

[Michael van Acken <Michael.van.Acken@de.uu.net>]

Stewart Greenhill <greenhil@murdoch.edu.au> writes:

> We could enforce this interpretation of abstract types by insisting that
> every type declared ABSTRACT has at least one method declared ABSTRACT. I
> would be prepared to add this to the specification. Can anyone think of any
> useful programming constructs that would be disallowed by this restriction? 

This particular rule serves little purpose, and consumes time of the
compiler writer.  Don't do it ;-)

I suggest to keep the specs as simple as possible, without any
convuluted bells and whistles that do not "improve" it.

-- mva