Re: RFC: Trait expects interface

On 6 January 2022 16:25:04 GMT, Chase Peeler <chasepeeler@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the advantage would come within the trait. If I say the trait >expects an interface with two methods, then the tool can act as if the >interfaces methods exist in the trait even if they aren't explicitly >defined. As others have pointed out, though, you can get the same behavior >from declaring the methods not implemented in the trait as abstract. This is where I wonder if people are talking at cross purposes. The *only* advantage I've understood of the proposal is to save on copy and paste of abstract methods from an interface into a trait, and everything else is just restating that in more complicated ways. So, yes, static analysers could use the information about requiring an interface in exactly the same way they can already use abstract method signatures, to validate the trait itself - but that wouldn't be any *easier* for the tool, and in fact would be extra logic for them to implement, so it seems an odd thing to bring up. But some comments seem to be hinting at some *separate* advantage, to do with "correct usage" of the trait, which I haven't grasped. It's possible that the mention of static analysis relates to that in some way, and I'm just completely missing the point. Regards, -- Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]