Hi, > That wont be breaking PAYG. The basic idea is to avoid loading/running > unnecessary code during runtime. Altering a class support subclassing > should be fine.
Which the modified version does and would comply with that definition of PAYG - unless you think a single null check is anti PAYG. This is why I been asking for a clear definition of PAYG and it certainly has generated some useful dicussion. > Looks like there is consensus on the subclassing route. Let's go with that > and solve > subsequent problems as they arise. Sure. Thanks, Justin
