When I try to compile an abstract class that subclasses an interface (see code below) but does not implement it completely, I get the following error:

\dmd\bin\dmd -c -od\dev\d\util\bin -I\dev\d\util\src
\dev\d\util\src\acr\test\Foo
\dmd\bin\dmd -c -od\dev\d\util\bin -I\dev\d\util\src
\dev\d\util\src\acr\test\AbstractFoo
\dev\d\util\src\acr\test\AbstractFoo.d: class AbstractFoo interface function
Foo.one is not implemented
make: *** [acr.test] Error 1

Then I try uncomment "Version 1" (in file AbstractFoo.d),
which does not work either (and would be terrible if that was
the accepted way, since that would mean rewriting abstract
functions all over).

Then I try "Version 2", which compiles, and I assume it's
a bug, since the function is declared abstract and nevertheless
has a body.

Then I get to "Version 3", which does not compile because the function want something returning from it.  Shouldn't a throw be return enough?

Finally, "Version 4" does compile, but I have defeated the purpose of having an "AbstractFoo" in the middle.

Ideas or comments?  Thanks.




Foo.d ----------------------------------------

module acr.test.Foo;

public interface Foo {
    int one(Object o);
    int two(Object o);
}


AbstractFoo.d ----------------------------------------

module acr.test.AbstractFoo;
import acr.test.Foo;


public abstract class AbstractFoo : Foo {
    // Version 1
    // abstract int one(Object o);

    // Version 2
    // abstract int one(Object o) { return 1; }

    // Version 3
    // int one(Object o) { throw new Error("should never be here"); }

    // Version 4
    // int one(Object o) { throw new Error("should never be here"); return
1; }

    int two(Object o) { return 2; }
}


RealFoo.d ----------------------------------------

module acr.test.RealFoo;
import acr.test.AbstractFoo;


public class RealFoo : AbstractFoo {
    int one(Object o) { return 1; }
    int two(Object o) { return super.two(o); }
    int three(Object o) { return 3; }
}