calling abstract methods from non-abstract methods..

[aadhi agathi]

Why does it not complain about defining f1() as abstract....

abstract class AbstractClass {
  public void f1() {
 f2();
  }
  public abstract void f2() ;
}

yes, it helps to control the flow but any other "semantical" reasons for this .

[Avi Abrami]

Hi Aadhi,

Why does it not complain

I assume "it" refers to the compiler. In other words, you want to know why the code (you have posted) compiles, right? Compilers usually only check syntax and dependencies. As long as you have some subclass (of "AbstractClass") that implements method "f2()", you should be fine.
So are you saying that your code compiles even without such a subclass?
Cheers,
Avi.

[aadhi agathi]

Originally posted by Avi Abrami:

I assume "it" refers to the compiler.
In other words, you want to know why the code (you have posted) compiles, right?

yes!

Compilers usually only check syntax and dependencies. As long as you have some subclass (of "AbstractClass") that implements method "f2()", you should be fine.

To reformat, I can't do this(topic), in a concrete class. But is there any hidden meaning to allow this in an abstract class(i could guess only flow control).