Skip to content
Permalink
Branch: master
Find file Copy path
Find file Copy path
2 contributors

Users who have contributed to this file

@AlekseyTs @jcouv
946 lines (705 sloc) 38.5 KB

default interface methods

  • Proposed
  • Prototype: In progress
  • Implementation: None
  • Specification: In progress, below

Summary

Add support for virtual extension methods - methods in interfaces with concrete implementations. A class or struct that implements such an interface is required to have a single most specific implementation for the interface method, either implemented by the class or struct, or inherited from its base classes or interfaces. Virtual extension methods enable an API author to add methods to an interface in future versions without breaking source or binary compatibility with existing implementations of that interface.

These are similar to Java's "Default Methods".

(Based on the likely implementation technique) this feature requires corresponding support in the CLI/CLR. Programs that take advantage of this feature cannot run on earlier versions of the platform.

Motivation

The principal motivations for this feature are

Detailed design

The syntax for an interface is extended to permit

  • a body for a method or indexer, property, or event accessor (that is, a "default" implementation)
  • static methods, properties, indexers, and events.
  • Explicit access modifiers (the default access is public)

Members with bodies permit the interface to provide a "default" implementation for the method in classes and structs that do not provide an overriding implementation.

Interfaces may not contain instance state. While static fields are now permitted, instance fields are not permitted in interfaces. Instance auto-properties are not supported in interfaces, as they would implicitly declare a hidden field.

Static and private methods permit useful refactoring and organization of code used to implement the interface's public API.

A method override in an interface must use the explicit interface implementation syntax.

Concrete methods in interfaces

The simplest form of this feature is the ability to declare a concrete method in an interface, which is a method with a body.

interface IA
{
    void M() { WriteLine("IA.M"); }
}

A class that implements this interface need not implement its concrete method.

class C : IA { } // OK

IA i = new C();
i.M(); // prints "IA.M"

The final override for IA.M in class C is the concrete method M declared in IA. Note that a class does not inherit members from its interfaces; that is not changed by this feature:

new C().M(); // error: class 'C' does not contain a member 'M'

Within an instance member of an interface, this has the type of the enclosing interface.

Modifiers in interfaces

The syntax for an interface is relaxed to permit modifiers on its members. The following are permitted: private, protected, internal, public, virtual, abstract, sealed, static, extern, and partial.

TODO: check what other modifiers exist.

An interface member whose declaration includes a body is a virtual member unless the sealed or private modifier is used. The virtual modifier may be used on a function member that would otherwise be implicitly virtual. Similarly, although abstract is the default on interface members without bodies, that modifier may be given explicitly. A non-virtual member may be declared using the sealed keyword.

It is an error for a private or sealed function member of an interface to have no body. A private function member may not have the modifier sealed.

Access modifiers may be used on interface members of all kinds of members that are permitted. The access level public is the default but it may be given explicitly.

Open Issue: We need to specify the precise meaning of the access modifiers such as protected and internal, and which declarations do and do not override them (in a derived interface) or implement them (in a class that implements the interface).

Interfaces may declare static members, including nested types, methods, indexers, properties, events, and static constructors. The default access level for all interface members is public.

Interfaces may not declare instance constructors, destructors, or fields.

Open Issue: Should operator declarations be permitted in an interface? Probably not conversion operators, but what about others?

Open Issue: Should new be permitted on interface member declarations that hide members from base interfaces?

Open Issue: Should const declarations be permitted in an interface?

Closed Issue: We do not currently permit partial on an interface or its members. That would require a separate proposal. Decision: Yes. https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2018/LDM-2018-10-17.md#permit-partial-in-interface

Overrides in interfaces

Override declarations (i.e. those containing the override modifier) allow the programmer to provide a most specific implementation of a virtual member in an interface where the compiler or runtime would not otherwise find one. It also allows turning an abstract member from a super-interface into a default member in a derived interface. An override declaration is permitted to explicitly override a particular base interface method by qualifying the declaration with the interface name (no access modifier is permitted in this case). Implicit overrides are not permitted.

interface IA
{
    void M() { WriteLine("IA.M"); }
}
interface IB : IA
{
    override void IA.M() { WriteLine("IB.M"); } // explicitly named
}
interface IC : IA
{
    override void M() { WriteLine("IC.M"); } // implicitly named
}

Override declarations in interfaces may not be declared sealed.

Public virtual function members in an interface may be overridden in a derived interface explicitly (by qualifying the name in the override declaration with the interface type that originally declared the method, and omitting an access modifier).

virtual function members in an interface may only be overridden explicitly (not implicitly) in derived interfaces, and members that are not public may only be implemented in a class or struct explicitly (not implicitly). In either case, the overridden or implemented member must be accessible where it is overridden.

Reabstraction

A virtual (concrete) method declared in an interface may be overridden to be abstract in a derived interface

interface IA
{
    void M() { WriteLine("IA.M"); }
}
interface IB : IA
{
    abstract void IA.M();
}
class C : IB { } // error: class 'C' does not implement 'IA.M'.

The abstract modifier is not required in the declaration of IB.M (that is the default in interfaces), but it is probably good practice to be explicit in an override declaration.

This is useful in derived interfaces where the default implementation of a method is inappropriate and a more appropriate implementation should be provided by implementing classes.

Open Issue: Should reabstraction be permitted?

The most specific override rule

We require that every interface and class have a most specific override for every virtual member among the overrides appearing in the type or its direct and indirect interfaces. The most specific override is a unique override that is more specific than every other override. If there is no override, the member itself is considered the most specific override.

One override M1 is considered more specific than another override M2 if M1 is declared on type T1, M2 is declared on type T2, and either

  1. T1 contains T2 among its direct or indirect interfaces, or
  2. T2 is an interface type but T1 is not an interface type.

For example:

interface IA
{
    void M() { WriteLine("IA.M"); }
}
interface IB : IA
{
    void IA.M() { WriteLine("IB.M"); }
}
interface IC : IA
{
    void IA.M() { WriteLine("IC.M"); }
}
interface ID : IB, IC { } // error: no most specific override for 'IA.M'
abstract class C : IB, IC { } // error: no most specific override for 'IA.M'
abstract class D : IA, IB, IC // ok
{
    public abstract void M();
}

The most specific override rule ensures that a conflict (i.e. an ambiguity arising from diamond inheritance) is resolved explicitly by the programmer at the point where the conflict arises.

Because we support explicit abstract overrides in interfaces, we could do so in classes as well

abstract class E : IA, IB, IC // ok
{
    abstract void IA.M();
}

Open issue: should we support explicit interface abstract overrides in classes?

In addition, it is an error if in a class declaration the most specific override of some interface method is an abstract override that was declared in an interface. This is an existing rule restated using the new terminology.

interface IF
{
    void M();
}
abstract class F : IF { } // error: 'F' does not implement 'IF.M'

It is possible for a virtual property declared in an interface to have a most specific override for its get accessor in one interface and a most specific override for its set accessor in a different interface. This is considered a violation of the most specific override rule.

static and private methods

Because interfaces may now contain executable code, it is useful to abstract common code into private and static methods. We now permit these in interfaces.

Closed issue: Should we support private methods? Should we support static methods? Decision: YES

Open issue: should we permit interface methods to be protected or internal or other access? If so, what are the semantics? Are they virtual by default? If so, is there a way to make them non-virtual?

Open issue: If we support static methods, should we support (static) operators?

Base interface invocations

Code in a type that derives from an interface with a default method can explicitly invoke that interface's "base" implementation.

interface I0
{
   void M() { Console.WriteLine("I0"); }
}
interface I1 : I0
{
   override void M() { Console.WriteLine("I1"); }
}
interface I2 : I0
{
   override void M() { Console.WriteLine("I2"); }
}
interface I3 : I1, I2
{
   // an explicit override that invoke's a base interface's default method
   void I0.M() { I2.base.M(); }
}

An instance (nonstatic) method is permitted to invoke the implementation of an accessible instance method in a direct base interface nonvirtually by naming it using the syntax base(Type).M. This is useful when an override that is required to be provided due to diamond inheritance is resolved by delegating to one particular base implementation.

interface IA
{
    void M() { WriteLine("IA.M"); }
}
interface IB : IA
{
    override void IA.M() { WriteLine("IB.M"); }
}
interface IC : IA
{
    override void IA.M() { WriteLine("IC.M"); }
}

class D : IA, IB, IC
{
    void IA.M() { base(IB).M(); }
}

When a virtual or abstract member is accessed using the syntax base(Type).M, it is required that Type contains a unique most specific override for M.

Binding base clauses

Interfaces now contain types. These types may be used in the base clause as base interfaces. When binding a base clause, we may need to know the set of base interfaces to bind those types (e.g. to lookup in them and to resolve protected access). The meaning of an interface's base clause is thus circularly defined. To break the cycle, we add a new language rules corresponding to a similar rule already in place for classes.

While determining the meaning of the interface_base of an interface, the base interfaces are temporarily assumed to be empty. Intuitively this ensures that the meaning of a base clause cannot recursively depend on itself.

We used to have the following rules:

"When a class B derives from a class A, it is a compile-time error for A to depend on B. A class directly depends on its direct base class (if any) and directly depends on the class within which it is immediately nested (if any). Given this definition, the complete set of classes upon which a class depends is the reflexive and transitive closure of the directly depends on relationship."

It is a compile-time error for an interface to directly or indirectly inherit from itself. The base interfaces of an interface are the explicit base interfaces and their base interfaces. In other words, the set of base interfaces is the complete transitive closure of the explicit base interfaces, their explicit base interfaces, and so on.

We are adjusting them as follows:

When a class B derives from a class A, it is a compile-time error for A to depend on B. A class directly depends on its direct base class (if any) and directly depends on the type within which it is immediately nested (if any).

When an interface IB extends an interface IA, it is a compile-time error for IA to depend on IB. An interface directly depends on its direct base interfaces (if any) and directly depends on the type within which it is immediately nested (if any).

Given these definitions, the complete set of types upon which a type depends is the reflexive and transitive closure of the directly depends on relationship.

Effect on existing programs

The rules presented here are intended to have no effect on the meaning of existing programs.

Example 1:

interface IA
{
    void M();
}
class C: IA // Error: IA.M has no concrete most specific override in C
{
    public static void M() { } // method unrelated to 'IA.M' because static
}

Example 2:

interface IA
{
    void M();
}
class Base: IA
{
    void IA.M() { }
}
class Derived: Base, IA // OK, all interface members have a concrete most specific override
{
    private void M() { } // method unrelated to 'IA.M' because private
}

The same rules give similar results to the analogous situation involving default interface methods:

interface IA
{
    void M() { }
}
class Derived: IA // OK, all interface members have a concrete most specific override
{
    private void M() { } // method unrelated to 'IA.M' because private
}

Closed issue: confirm that this is an intended consequence of the specification. Decision: YES

Runtime method resolution

Closed Issue: The spec should describe the runtime method resolution algorithm in the face of interface default methods. We need to ensure that the semantics are consistent with the language semantics, e.g. which declared methods do and do not override or implement an internal method.

CLR support API

In order for compilers to detect when they are compiling for a runtime that supports this feature, libraries for such runtimes are modified to advertise that fact through the API discussed in https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/issues/17116. We add

namespace System.Runtime.CompilerServices
{
    public static class RuntimeFeature
    {
        // Presence of the field indicates runtime support
        public const string DefaultInterfaceImplementation = nameof(DefaultInterfaceImplementation);
    }
}

Open issue: Is that the best name for the CLR feature? The CLR feature does much more than just that (e.g. relaxes protection constraints, supports overrides in interfaces, etc). Perhaps it should be called something like "concrete methods in interfaces", or "traits"?

Further areas to be specified

  • It would be useful to catalog the kinds of source and binary compatibility effects caused by adding default interface methods and overrides to existing interfaces.

Drawbacks

This proposal requires a coordinated update to the CLR specification (to support concrete methods in interfaces and method resolution). It is therefore fairly "expensive" and it may be worth doing in combination with other features that we also anticipate would require CLR changes.

Alternatives

None.

Unresolved questions

  • Open questions are called out throughout the proposal, above.
  • See also https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/issues/406 for a list of open questions.
  • The detailed specification must describe the resolution mechanism used at runtime to select the precise method to be invoked.
  • The interaction of metadata produced by new compilers and consumed by older compilers needs to be worked out in detail. For example, we need to ensure that the metadata representation that we use does not cause the addition of a default implementation in an interface to break an existing class that implements that interface when compiled by an older compiler. This may affect the metadata representation that we can use.
  • The design must consider interoperation with other languages and existing compilers for other languages.

Resolved Questions

Abstract Override

The earlier draft spec contained the ability to "reabstract" an inherited method:

interface IA
{
    void M();
}
interface IB : IA
{
    override void M() { }
}
interface IC : IB
{
    override void M(); // make it abstract again
}

My notes for 2017-03-20 showed that we decided not to allow this. However, there are at least two use cases for it:

  1. The Java APIs, with which some users of this feature hope to interoperate, depend on this facility.
  2. Programming with traits benefits from this. Reabstraction is one of the elements of the "traits" language feature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait_(computer_programming)). The following is permitted with classes:
public abstract class Base
{
    public abstract void M();
}
public abstract class A : Base
{
    public override void M() { }
}
public abstract class B : A
{
    public override abstract void M(); // reabstract Base.M
}

Unfortunately this code cannot be refactored as a set of interfaces (traits) unless this is permitted. By the Jared principle of greed, it should be permitted.

Closed issue: Should reabstraction be permitted? [YES] My notes were wrong. The LDM notes say that reabstraction is permitted in an interface. Not in a class.

Virtual Modifier vs Sealed Modifier

From Aleksey Tsingauz:

We decided to allow modifiers explicitly stated on interface members, unless there is a reason to disallow some of them. This brings an interesting question around virtual modifier. Should it be required on members with default implementation?

We could say that:

  • if there is no implementation and neither virtual, nor sealed are specified, we assume the member is abstract.
  • if there is an implementation and neither abstract, nor sealed are specified, we assume the member is virtual.
  • sealed modifier is required to make a method neither virtual, nor abstract.

Alternatively, we could say that virtual modifier is required for a virtual member. I.e, if there is a member with implementation not explicitly marked with virtual modifier, it is neither virtual, nor abstract. This approach might provide better experience when a method is moved from a class to an interface:

  • an abstract method stays abstract.
  • a virtual method stays virtual.
  • a method without any modifier stays neither virtual, nor abstract.
  • sealed modifier cannot be applied to a method that is not an override.

What do you think?

Closed Issue: Should a concrete method (with implementation) be implicitly virtual? [YES]

Decisions: Made in the LDM 2017-04-05:

  1. non-virtual should be explicitly expressed through sealed or private.
  2. sealed is the keyword to make interface instance members with bodies non-virtual
  3. We want to allow all modifiers in interfaces
  4. Default accessibility for interface members is public, including nested types
  5. private function members in interfaces are implicitly sealed, and sealed is not permitted on them.
  6. Private classes (in interfaces) are permitted and can be sealed, and that means sealed in the class sense of sealed.
  7. Absent a good proposal, partial is still not allowed on interfaces or their members.

Binary Compatibility 1

When a library provides a default implementation

interface I1
{
    void M() { Impl1 }
}
interface I2 : I1
{
}
class C : I2
{
}

We understand that the implementation of I1.M in C is I1.M. What if the assembly containing I2 is changed as follows and recompiled

interface I2 : I1
{
    override void M() { Impl2 }
}

but C is not recompiled. What happens when the program is run? An invocation of (C as I1).M()

  1. Runs I1.M
  2. Runs I2.M
  3. Throws some kind of runtime error

Decision: Made 2017-04-11: Runs I2.M, which is the unambiguously most specific override at runtime.

Event accessors (closed)

Closed Issue: Can an event be overridden "piecewise"?

Consider this case:

public interface I1
{
    event T e1;
}
public interface I2 : I1
{
    override event T
    {
        add { }
        // error: "remove" accessor missing
    }
}

This "partial" implementation of the event is not permitted because, as in a class, the syntax for an event declaration does not permit only one accessor; both (or neither) must be provided. You could accomplish the same thing by permitting the abstract remove accessor in the syntax to be implicitly abstract by the absence of a body:

public interface I1
{
    event T e1;
}
public interface I2 : I1
{
    override event T
    {
        add { }
        remove; // implicitly abstract
    }
}

Note that this is a new (proposed) syntax. In the current grammar, event accessors have a mandatory body.

Closed Issue: Can an event accessor be (implicitly) abstract by the omission of a body, similarly to the way that methods in interfaces and property accessors are (implicitly) abstract by the omission of a body?

Decision: (2017-04-18) No, event declarations require both concrete accessors (or neither).

Reabstraction in a Class (closed)

Closed Issue: We should confirm that this is permitted (otherwise adding a default implementation would be a breaking change):

interface I1
{
    void M() { }
}
abstract class C : I1
{
    public abstract void M(); // implement I1.M with an abstract method in C
}

Decision: (2017-04-18) Yes, adding a body to an interface member declaration shouldn't break C.

Sealed Override (closed)

The previous question implicitly assumes that the sealed modifier can be applied to an override in an interface. This contradicts the draft specification. Do we want to permit sealing an override? Source and binary compatibility effects of sealing should be considered.

Closed Issue: Should we permit sealing an override?

Decision: (2017-04-18) Let's not allowed sealed on overrides in interfaces. The only use of sealed on interface members is to make them non-virtual in their initial declaration.

Diamond inheritance and classes (closed)

The draft of the proposal prefers class overrides to interface overrides in diamond inheritance scenarios:

We require that every interface and class have a most specific override for every interface method among the overrides appearing in the type or its direct and indirect interfaces. The most specific override is a unique override that is more specific than every other override. If there is no override, the method itself is considered the most specific override.

One override M1 is considered more specific than another override M2 if M1 is declared on type T1, M2 is declared on type T2, and either

  1. T1 contains T2 among its direct or indirect interfaces, or
  2. T2 is an interface type but T1 is not an interface type.

The scenario is this

interface IA
{
    void M();
}
interface IB : IA
{
    override void M() { WriteLine("IB"); }
}
class Base : IA
{
    void IA.M() { WriteLine("Base"); }
}
class Derived : Base, IB // allowed?
{
    static void Main()
    {
        Ia a = new Derived();
        a.M();           // what does it do?
    }
}

We should confirm this behavior (or decide otherwise)

Closed Issue: Confirm the draft spec, above, for most specific override as it applies to mixed classes and interfaces (a class takes priority over an interface). See https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2017/LDM-2017-04-19.md#diamonds-with-classes.

Interface methods vs structs (closed)

There are some unfortunate interactions between default interface methods and structs.

interface IA
{
    public void M() { }
}
struct S : IA
{
}

Note that interface members are not inherited:

var s = default(S);
s.M(); // error: 'S' does not contain a member 'M'

Consequently, the client must box the struct to invoke interface methods

IA s = default(S); // an S, boxed
s.M(); // ok

Boxing in this way defeats the principal benefits of a struct type. Moreover, any mutation methods will have no apparent effect, because they are operating on a boxed copy of the struct:

interface IB
{
    public void Increment() { P += 1; }
    public int P { get; set; }
}
struct T : IB
{
    public int P { get; set; } // auto-property
}

T t = default(T);
Console.WriteLine(t.P); // prints 0
(t as IB).Increment();
Console.WriteLine(t.P); // prints 0

Closed Issue: What can we do about this:

  1. Forbid a struct from inheriting a default implementation. All interface methods would be treated as abstract in a struct. Then we may take time later to decide how to make it work better.
  2. Come up with some kind of code generation strategy that avoids boxing. Inside a method like IB.Increment, the type of this would perhaps be akin to a type parameter constrained to IB. In conjunction with that, to avoid boxing in the caller, non-abstract methods would be inherited from interfaces. This may increase compiler and CLR implementation work substantially.
  3. Not worry about it and just leave it as a wart.
  4. Other ideas?

Decision: Not worry about it and just leave it as a wart. See https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2017/LDM-2017-04-19.md#structs-and-default-implementations.

Base interface invocations (closed)

The draft spec suggests a syntax for base interface invocations inspired by Java: Interface.base.M(). We need to select a syntax, at least for the initial prototype. My favorite is base<Interface>.M().

Closed Issue: What is the syntax for a base member invocation?

Decision: The syntax is base(Interface).M(). See https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2017/LDM-2017-04-19.md#base-invocation. The interface so named must be a base interface, but does not need to be a direct base interface.

Open Issue: Should base interface invocations be permitted in class members?

Decision: Yes. https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2017/LDM-2017-04-19.md#base-invocation

Overriding non-public interface members (closed)

In an interface, non-public members from base interfaces are overridden using the override modifier. If it is an "explicit" override that names the interface containing the member, the access modifier is omitted.

Closed Issue: If it is an "implicit" override that does not name the interface, does the access modifier have to match?

Decision: Only public members may be implicitly overridden, and the access must match. See https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2017/LDM-2017-04-18.md#dim-implementing-a-non-public-interface-member-not-in-list.

Open Issue: Is the access modifier required, optional, or omitted on an explicit override such as override void IB.M() {}?

Open Issue: Is override required, optional, or omitted on an explicit override such as void IB.M() {}?

How does one implement a non-public interface member in a class? Perhaps it must be done explicitly?

interface IA
{
    internal void MI();
    protected void MP();
}
class C : IA
{
    // are these implementations?
    internal void MI() {}
    protected void MP() {}
}

Closed Issue: How does one implement a non-public interface member in a class?

Decision: You can only implement non-public interface members explicitly. See https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2017/LDM-2017-04-18.md#dim-implementing-a-non-public-interface-member-not-in-list.

Decision: No override keyword permitted on interface members. https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2018/LDM-2018-10-17.md#does-an-override-in-an-interface-introduce-a-new-member

Binary Compatibility 2 (closed)

Consider the following code in which each type is in a separate assembly

interface I1
{
    void M() { Impl1 }
}
interface I2 : I1
{
    override void M() { Impl2 }
}
interface I3 : I1
{
}
class C : I2, I3
{
}

We understand that the implementation of I1.M in C is I2.M. What if the assembly containing I3 is changed as follows and recompiled

interface I3 : I1
{
    override void M() { Impl3 }
}

but C is not recompiled. What happens when the program is run? An invocation of (C as I1).M()

  1. Runs I1.M
  2. Runs I2.M
  3. Runs I3.M
  4. Either 2 or 3, deterministically
  5. Throws some kind of runtime exception

Decision: Throw an exception (5). See https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2018/LDM-2018-10-17.md#issues-in-default-interface-methods.

Permit partial in interface? (closed)

Given that interfaces may be used in ways analogous to the way abstract classes are used, it may be useful to declare them partial. This would be particularly useful in the face of generators.

Proposal: Remove the language restriction that interfaces and members of interfaces may not be declared partial.

Decision: Yes. See https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2018/LDM-2018-10-17.md#permit-partial-in-interface.

Main in an interface? (closed)

Open Issue: Is a static Main method in an interface a candidate to be the program's entry point?

Decision: Yes. See https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2018/LDM-2018-10-17.md#main-in-an-interface.

Confirm intent to support public non-virtual methods (closed)

Can we please confirm (or reverse) our decision to permit non-virtual public methods in an interface?

interface IA
{
    public sealed void M() { }
}

Semi-Closed Issue: (2017-04-18) We think it is going to be useful, but will come back to it. This is a mental model tripping block.

Decision: Yes. https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2018/LDM-2018-10-17.md#confirm-that-we-support-public-non-virtual-methods.

Does an override in an interface introduce a new member? (closed)

There are a few ways to observe whether an override declaration introduces a new member or not.

interface IA
{
    void M(int x) { }
}
interface IB : IA
{
    override void M(int y) { }
}
interface IC : IB
{
    static void M2()
    {
        M(y: 3); // permitted?
    }
    override void IB.M(int z) { } // permitted? What does it override?
}

Open Issue: Does an override declaration in an interface introduce a new member? (closed)

In a class, an overriding method is "visible" in some senses. For example, the names of its parameters take precedence over the names of parameters in the overridden method. It may be possible to duplicate that behavior in interfaces, as there is always a most specific override. But do we want to duplicate that behavior?

Also, it is possible to "override" an override method? [Moot]

Decision: No override keyword permitted on interface members. https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2018/LDM-2018-10-17.md#does-an-override-in-an-interface-introduce-a-new-member.

Properties with a private accessor (closed)

We say that private members are not virtual, and the combination of virtual and private is disallowed. But what about a property with a private accessor?

interface IA
{
    public virtual int P
    {
        get => 3;
        private set => { }
    }
}

Is this allowed? Is the set accessor here virtual or not? Can it be overridden where it is accessible? Does the following implicitly implement only the get accessor?

class C : IA
{
    public int P
    {
        get => 4;
        set { }
    }
}

Is the following presumably an error because IA.P.set isn't virtual and also because it isn't accessible?

class C : IA
{
    int IA.P
    {
        get => 4;
        set { }
    }
}

Decision: The first example looks valid, while the last does not. This is resolved analogously to how it already works in C#. https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2018/LDM-2018-10-17.md#properties-with-a-private-accessor

Base Interface Invocations, round 2 (closed)

Our previous "resolution" to how to handle base invocations doesn't actually provide sufficient expressiveness. It turns out that in C# and the CLR, unlike Java, you need to specify both the interface containing the method declaration and the location of the implementation you want to invoke.

I propose the following syntax for base calls in interfaces. I’m not in love with it, but it illustrates what any syntax must be able to express:

interface I1 { void M(); }
interface I2 { void M(); }
interface I3 : I1, I2 { void I1.M() { } void I2.M() { } }
interface I4 : I1, I2 { void I1.M() { } void I2.M() { } }
interface I5 : I3, I4
{
    void I1.M()
    {
        base<I3>(I1).M(); // calls I3's implementation of I1.M
        base<I4>(I1).M(); // calls I4's implementation of I1.M
    }
    void I2.M()
    {
        base<I3>(I2).M(); // calls I3's implementation of I2.M
        base<I4>(I2).M(); // calls I4's implementation of I2.M
    }
}

If there is no ambiguity, you can write it more simply

interface I1 { void M(); }
interface I3 : I1 { void I1.M() { } }
interface I4 : I1 { void I1.M() { } }
interface I5 : I3, I4
{
    void I1.M()
    {
        base<I3>.M(); // calls I3's implementation of I1.M
        base<I4>.M(); // calls I4's implementation of I1.M
    }
}

Or

interface I1 { void M(); }
interface I2 { void M(); }
interface I3 : I1, I2 { void I1.M() { } void I2.M() { } }
interface I5 : I3
{
    void I1.M()
    {
        base(I1).M(); // calls I3's implementation of I1.M
    }
    void I2.M()
    {
        base(I2).M(); // calls I3's implementation of I2.M
    }
}

Or

interface I1 { void M(); }
interface I3 : I1 { void I1.M() { } }
interface I5 : I3
{
    void I1.M()
    {
        base.M(); // calls I3's implementation of I1.M
    }
}

Decision: Decided on base(N.I1<T>).M(s), conceding that if we have an invocation binding there may be problem here later on. https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2018/LDM-2018-11-14.md#default-interface-implementations

Warning for struct not implementing default method? (closed)

@vancem asserts that we should seriously consider producing a warning if a value type declaration fails to override some interface method, even if it would inherit an implementation of that method from an interface. Because it causes boxing and undermines constrained calls.

Decision: This seems like something more suited for an analyzer. It also seems like this warning could be noisy, since it would fire even if the default interface method is never called and no boxing will ever occur. https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2018/LDM-2018-10-17.md#warning-for-struct-not-implementing-default-method

Interface static constructors (closed)

When are interface static constructors run? The current CLI draft proposes that it occurs when the first static method or field is accessed. If there are neither of those then it might never be run??

[2018-10-09 The CLR team proposes "Going to mirror what we do for valuetypes (cctor check on access to each instance method)"]

Decision: Static constructors are also run on entry to instance methods, if the static constructor was not beforefieldinit, in which case static constructors are run before access to the first static field. https://github.com/dotnet/csharplang/blob/master/meetings/2018/LDM-2018-10-17.md#when-are-interface-static-constructors-run

Design meetings

2017-03-08 LDM Meeting Notes 2017-03-21 LDM Meeting Notes 2017-03-23 meeting "CLR Behavior for Default Interface Methods" 2017-04-05 LDM Meeting Notes 2017-04-11 LDM Meeting Notes 2017-04-18 LDM Meeting Notes 2017-04-19 LDM Meeting Notes 2017-05-17 LDM Meeting Notes 2017-05-31 LDM Meeting Notes 2017-06-14 LDM Meeting Notes 2018-10-17 LDM Meeting Notes 2018-11-14 LDM Meeting Notes

You can’t perform that action at this time.