Why should an abstract class implement an abstract

Question

In the following example, the class Derived implements the abstract method method from class Main. But I can't think of a reason to fill in the method body in the abstract Derived class' implementation. Surely I should only implement abstract methods within real classes.

So how can I avoid doing it? What else can I do?

abstract class Main
{
    public abstract void method();
}
abstract class Derived : Main
{
    public override void method()
    { 
    }
}

class RealClass : Derived
{

}

Answer 1

If there's no implementation of method in Derived then you can just make Derived abstract as well:

abstract class Derived : Main
{
}

class RealClass : Derived
{
    public override void method() { ... }
}

EDIT: To clarify the comments - if there is no meaningful implementation of an abstract method in a subclass, then one does not need to be provided. This will however require that the derived class is itself abstract, and an implementation must be provided somewhere in the chain of descendant classes to some concrete subclass. I am not saying you should leave the implementation of method empty, as it is in the question, but rather you remove the override in Derived and mark the class abstract. This forces RealClass to provide an implementation (or itself be marked abstract).

Answer 2

All non-abstract descendant classes must provide concrete implementations of abstract methods. If you don't provide an implementation, then it's impossible to call that method.

If some concrete classes don't have an obvious proper implementation of a abstract method then your object design is incorrect. Maybe you should have an abstract class with some abstract methods (but not all). That class could have an both an abstract descendant and some concrete descendants.

Answer 3

Usually if someone has specified that an abstract class has an abstract method, it's either because that class depends on that method for some of what it does, or it's because it's part of an expected API that it wouldn't make sense for the parent class to implement at this time. In either case, there must be an implementation once you get to a non-abstract implementation of the class.

Note also that if you are implementing an interface, you are required to state how that interface will be implemented, even if you just call the member abstract and pass the responsibility onto the subclass

public interface IPet {string GetNoise(); int CountLegs(); void Walk();}
public abstract class Pet : IPet
{
    public string Name {get; set;}
    public abstract string GetNoise(); // These must be here
    public abstract int CountLegs();
    public abstract void Walk();
}

When it comes to implementing the sub-class, you have a few choices depending on the circumstances. If your implementation is itself an abstract class, you shouldn't need to implement the abstract method.

public abstract class Quadruped : Pet
{
    public override int CountLegs () { return 4; }
}

If your implementation is non-abstract, but the standard reason for the method in question really doesn't apply in your circumstance, you can do a no-op method (in the case of void methods), or return some dummy value, or even throw a NotImplementedException to indicate that the method should never have been called in the first place.

public class Fish : Pet
{
    public override string GetNoise() {return "";} // dummy value: fish don't make noise
    public override int CountLegs() {return 0;}
    public override void Walk() {} // No-op
    // public override void Walk() { throw new NotImplementedException("Fish can't walk"); }
}

Does that answer your question?