posted 25 years ago
Yes - but that's just the relationship between methods and the class that contains them. There is no such rule for inner classes and the class that contains them.
The reason that abstract methods force the entire class to be abstract is to prevent the possibility that a class could be instantiated without an implementation of one of its methods. In the case of abstract inner classes, it is already impossible to instantiate the inner class (as soon as you call a constructor for it, you get "can't instantiate abstract class"). So there is no way to write any code that would successfully access any abstract (undefined) features, and additional "protection" (in the form of an additional rule) is unnecessary.
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister