Gavin King wrote:

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Marius Bogoevici <mariusb@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();
}