G'day...
Firstly ***thanks*** to everyone who has been helping me with this.... Really appreciated...
Now, for friendly arguments sake...
> > I'm wanting to write a method in an abstract class that must be > > overriden by it's children. If it is called directly (i.e. without > > being overriden) then it registers an error, but if its > called via an > > overriding method then do some common functionality. > > That's not an abstract class.
Huh? I thought that was the definition of an abstract class... :)
... and to: http://www.gwydiondylan.org/drm/drm_126.htm
"A class that cannot have direct instances. The opposite of an abstract class is a concrete class."
Your class is not an abstract class in this sense, as you can instantiate objects of the class. This is the meaning that I have always used (coming from C++).
... and to: http://mcs.open.ac.uk/computing/html/new_courses/m301/glossary.htm
"[M206] A class that is not intended to have instances. An abstract class is used to define a minimum message protocol for all its subclasses. If the abstract class can implement the method directly then it does so and the code is inherited by the subclasses. If it cannot implement a working method (because the subclasses must implement the method differently) then it defines a dummy method that raises an exception if it is invoked, thus forcing all subclasses to over-ride the method. This is a class which is never used to create objects, rather it is used to specify the minimum set of messages to which any subclass (of the abstract class) can respond, that is to say an abstract class describes the common characteristics of its subclasses."
... is there something I'm missing... :)
Your class IS an abstract class in this sense.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://learn.perl.org/> <http://learn.perl.org/first-response>
