Re: Must an interface have a name?

[Michael Eager <eager at eagercon dot com>]

We already treat interfaces different from classes, otherwise we would
just use a single TAG for both.  In C++ (if not Java), a class without a
name is not (necessarily) an error.  In Java, an interface without a name
is an error.  If you must have a name, then there seems to be little reason 
to suggest that specifying a name attribute for a DW_TAG_interface would be 
optional.

"Burton, Felix" wrote:
> 
> 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
> >


-- 
Michael Eager	 Eager Consulting     eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077