To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=61473
Issue #:|61473
Summary:|please allow optional base interfaces even if method
|names would conflict
Component:|udk
Version:|680m153
Platform:|All
URL:|
OS/Version:|All
Status:|NEW
Status whiteboard:|
Keywords:|
Resolution:|
Issue type:|DEFECT
Priority:|P3
Subcomponent:|code
Assigned to:|sb
Reported by:|fs
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 1 04:52:12 -0800
2006 -------
The following interface declaration in IDL is rejected by the IDL compiler:
interface XFoo
{
interface com::sun::star::beans::XPropertySet;
interface com::sun::star::beans::XMultiPropertySet;
};
This is okay so far, since both XPropertySet and XMultiPropertySet contain a
method named XPropertySetInfo.
However, the following declaration is also rejected:
interface XBar
{
interface com::sun::star::beans::XPropertySet;
[optional] interface com::sun::star::beans::XMultiPropertySet;
};
Why? Name collisions should not be a problem here, since the "optional" should
degrade the XMultiPropertySet inclusion to a mere documentation thing.
At least in the case where both methods (the same probably applies to
attributes) have the same signature, I would expect that IDLC accepts the second
interface as optional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
