No, because Runnable implies it's a piece of code that's run (one that's not seeking a result), much to the likes of Thread (which implements Runnable).
If Runnable was useless, it wouldn't have been made.
I want my class to be considered part of Runnable because it matches the format with similar (if not (essentially) the same) methods, and because a lot of things use Runnable in place of functions in Java.
Exactly, nothing extends
void
. I am not sure of what you want to do but could java.util.function.Supplier be a better suited interface thanRunnable
?No, because
Runnable
implies it's a piece of code that's run (one that's not seeking a result), much to the likes ofThread
(which implementsRunnable
).If
Runnable
was useless, it wouldn't have been made.I want my class to be considered part of
Runnable
because it matches the format with similar (if not (essentially) the same) methods, and because a lot of things useRunnable
in place of functions in Java.Note that a runnable doesn't 'return' void. What the 'void' return type means is that it doesn't return something.
Things like Supplier, Consumer and Function are used as much as Runnable.