You know what worries me the most, everyone has been rambling and raving on about OO, but it appears the basic principles of OO are not known to many of you who are rambling, especially you Scott (not including you Adam and and and ;-\)
> > The init method should initialize the object, right? And > every object > > takes care of initializing its own, right? So we don't have the > > grandchild initializing all just because he can, right? > > No, but you *might* want to do that, and it's entirely > reasonable to want to. I don't see why you would want to? A Class should Extend, not duplicate functionality, isn't that one of the principles of OO? Abstraction... Dying to know why you would want to.. ^burb* > And even over and above init() methods, it's entirely > reasonable to want to do it with normal methods too > (pretending for a second that an init() method is actually a > constructor, not just a "normal" method). > Taco Fleur Tell me and I will forget Show me and I will remember Teach me and I will learn --- You are currently subscribed to cfaussie as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aussie Macromedia Developers: http://lists.daemon.com.au/
