This is the mail archive of the
dwarf2@corp.sgi.com
mailing list for the dwarf2 project.
RE: Must an interface have a name?
- To: "'brender at gemgrp dot zko dot dec dot com'" <brender at gemgrp dot zko dot dec dot com>, "Burton, Felix" <felix dot burton at windriver dot com>, DWARF2 at corp dot sgi dot com
- Subject: RE: Must an interface have a name?
- From: "Burton, Felix" <felix dot burton at windriver dot com>
- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 12:06:22 -0700
- Reply-To: "Burton, Felix" <felix dot burton at windriver dot com>
The Java language requires a name for interfaces as well as for classes. I
can't think of any reason to have nameless interfaces, but I don't think it
makes sense to treat DW_TAG_interface_type different from DW_TAG_class_type
in this case.
Felix
> -----Original Message-----
> From: brender@gemgrp.zko.dec.com [mailto:brender@gemgrp.zko.dec.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 6:32 AM
> To: FB@ddi.com; DWARF2@postofc.corp.sgi.com;
> BRENDER@gemgrp.zko.dec.com
> Subject: Must an interface have a name?
>
>
> Felix,
>
> Draft2, Section 5.5.2, p54 currently reads:
>
> "If a name has been given to the interface in the source, ..."
>
> Last week during the editorial review, it was questioned
> whether a JAVA
> interface must have a name or not. Some thought not, I
> recalled that you
> told me it was optional and no one could think of what use
> such a nameless
> interface could possibly be!
>
> Could you elaborate for us, please?
>
> Ron
>