Timeline for Is there any difference between interfaces and abstract classes that have abstract methods only?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 26, 2013 at 7:42 | comment | added | Ivan Pintar | @AmyBlankenship yes, most of the time abstract classes do have "real" code (that's what they're there for). But I was referring to abstract methods, within the context of a purely abstract class that serves as an interface in a language like C++, which does not have interfaces. | |
| Apr 25, 2013 at 21:36 | comment | added | Amy Blankenship | @Pinetree, in practice most of the time you'll want at least a little "real" code in your Abstract Classes (at least in the language I use, which doesn't have a special construct for Abstract Classes). | |
| Apr 20, 2013 at 13:45 | history | edited | tgkprog | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
interface many
|
| Apr 19, 2013 at 13:24 | history | edited | tgkprog | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
forgot abstract methods - no body; static blocks and constructors added
|
| Apr 19, 2013 at 13:22 | comment | added | tgkprog | yes your right then i guess its just the variables, constructors and static & private methods if you count those | |
| Apr 19, 2013 at 13:12 | comment | added | Ivan Pintar | Aren't abstract methods defined without any implementation, and leave the implementation to the inheriting classes? | |
| Apr 19, 2013 at 12:46 | history | answered | tgkprog | CC BY-SA 3.0 |