Extension vs defender methods

[Llewellyn Falco]

> How about "non-abstract" or "concrete" method?  Once it is in the language,
> there is little reason for these methods to have a different name than the
> corresponding construct in a class.

while this makes sense, it opens up a whole new issue ...

>Is there any interesting difference between interfaces with extension
>method and interfaces without?

the "standard" naming for interfaces w/non-abstract methods is: "an
abstract class"

and then it gets all confusing between regular "abstract classes" and
"abstract classes that are also interfaces"


of course, you could classify them as "multiple-inheritance abstract classes"

-- 
Llewellyn Falco
www.approvaltests.com
www.teachingkidsprogramming.org