I wasn't looking to implement meathods in the interface, I was looking to have a default class that implements the interface that would be created if you called `new Interface();`  I don't think this is possible. and now that I think about it I think that it is for a good reason.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Jacob Carlborg <doob@me.com> wrote:
On 2012-02-17 18:04, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 22:01:51 -0500, Kevin <kevincox.ca@gmail.com> wrote:

I was implementing a framework and I found that I wanted two things.
- A strong set of interfaces so that I can get what I want from a
variety of sources.
- Some basic implementations of these interfaces.

For example, say I was writing a database class. I could either name
the interface Database and call the class DatabaseImplementation or
something but that is ugly. If I call the interface IDatabase, the
Database class looks nice but I need to convince users to write
functions that take IDatabases not Databases.

I was wondering if there was any way to implement a default
implementation. This way, I could create my Database interface and
classes could implement that but if you called `new Database()` you
would still get a basic database.

Aside from what has been said already, if you wish to have methods that
are not static defined in the interface, final methods currently work:

interface I
{
void foo();
final void callFoo() {writeln("about to call foo"); foo(); writeln("ok,
I called foo");}
}

This isn't exactly a "default implementation", since you can't override it.

But you could have one final method, the implementation and one virtual, the one you would override. It's an idea, I don't know if it's a good one.


--
/Jacob Carlborg