After searching for the answer, I still cannot gra...

# getting-started

[Loney Chou]

After searching for the answer, I still cannot grasp the reason why "functions within interfaces cannot be protected". I know Java doesn't allow this, but Kotlin could somehow lower the restriction (just like this proposal), no?
My use case is that I need to define an interface that has a lot of default functions (they should be overriddable) delegated to an abstract function, and this function should be considered as implementation.
Now that both internal and private are on the plate, where is protected?

[xoangon]

Neither protected nor private are allowed in interfaces, and that's something that makes sense.

An interface is a contract that doesn't get into implementation details. Both private and protected functions are part of an implementation.

I recommend you read this Medium post about interfaces

[Ronny Bräunlich]

From my point of view, if you must delegate to some internal implementation in an interface you should abstract it into another class (like Strategy pattern). Something like this:

interface Foo {

    val inner: OtherFoo

    fun doSomething() {
        println("foo")
        inner.doSomething()
    }
}

[Loney Chou]

Thanks for your response. 🤝
> Neither protected nor private are allowed in interfaces.
>
private is allowed in interfaces. The only reason I saw so far is "you can share logic for default functions", but with top level functions (even in Java you could make another util class), it makes no sense to have them inside interfaces (on the language level).

[xoangon]

Oh, you’re right @Loney Chou. You can define private functions in interfaces. The correct statement would be:

> You can’t declare private or protected abstract methods/accessors in an interface