Gavin King wrote:
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Marius Bogoevici
<mariusb(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Actually, we could just ignore the method (as if it wasn't defined at all)
> if it is abstract
>
The problem is that the decorator class can call itself. It's much
better if that results in meaningful behavior than a runtime
exception.
Ok, that makes sense. So, just to merge this with what you said on the
other e-mail thread: we only allow methods that are matching methods on
the base class to be abstract, case in which we assume that:
abstract void doSomething();
is equivalent to
void doSomething()
{
delegate.doSomething();
}