Berin,<snip/>
But if you have a class Abc that inherits from Bar then if you cast Abc to Foo and access the FOO contant you'll
see it. Accessing it via a Bar cast is also possible so
there is some trickery going on here. True inheritance
is not actually at play but there is the appearance of it.
This may still lead to ROLE confusion though or what appears to be ROLE confusion via this simulated inheritance. So yes your right but does this mean there is no confusion
with which ROLE is which?
You can always confuse yourself over something. No matter how smart or how inexperienced you are. The meta info will provide just as many questions as the ROLE constant will--probably more. The reason is that newbies to component based design have seen static constants before, but they may not have seen meta info driven contracts before.
It's all about what is easiest at the time. I am not going to take a strong stance pro or anti ROLE constants. THe most you can expect from me is to correct some misunderstandings.
Remember, I'm supposed to be phasing out and pursuing other ventures ;P
lookup(Interface.ROLE); lookup("interface");
Which will let the compiler tell you that you made a typo before you try to run it?
Very good point!
And the original push for that style of doing things.
Rely would be too strong. More like it takes advantage of it if you desire.
So then I'll presume the operation of components without the ROLE const is possible in pico.
Correct.
--
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
