Re: Gee RFC: Moving sane default implementations without any overhead to interfaces

[Didier 'Ptitjes' Villevalois <ptitjes free fr>]

Hi Maciej,

Glad to see you are fine. And happy new year btw.

On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 18:35 +0100, Maciej Piechotka wrote:
> As there is support for virtual functions in interfaces I'd like to get
> comments regarding moving some implementation from abstract classes to
> interfaces.
> 
> The methods proposed to change:
>  - Should have implementation based on different methods
>  - Do not introduce any additional fields etc.
> Some classes (AbstractMultiSet) will stay largely intact.

Could you point to the specific methods you would like move in
interfaces ? I guess this would simplify the discussion.

> Pros:
>  - Allowing to reuse of implementations that cannot inherit from
> abstract classes.

Do you speak for any potential external implementers of gee's
interfaces ? (which is, btw, not currently a real concern for gee) If
yes, are there specific use cases you have in mind ?

Or do you speak for the internal implementations gee provides ? If yes
what exactly do we gain here ?

>  - More GObject-likeness IMHO (and partially C#-likeness)

We don't mind that.

> Cons:
>  - Yet another breakage of API/ABI in 0.7

I guess we don't mind that much that neither. It depends how much things
you want to move in the interfaces...

>  - Some people don't like virtual methods in interfaces
>  - Less Java-likeness

Those are void if you can prove the advantages of what you propose.

Best regards, Didier.