I have a couple of questions about abstract with default implementation

[Maurizio Cimadamore]

On 17/12/11 05:41, Robert Field wrote:
> I don't believe the abstractness of default methods is completely nailed
> down.  But our model of it for the current implementation is that
> default methods are not abstract (even though they are in an
> interface).  Two possible models: (1) now three options:
> abstract/concrete/default; or (2) default methods are concrete.
We recently switched to a model where the compiler considered extension 
methods as abstract methods (just because they were in an interface) to 
a different model that considers extension methods as a 'new kind' of 
non-abstract methods. That's why the compiler has started to bark with 
the 'abstractness' of extension with a body.

Maurizio