Perhaps this abstract base class could instead be an interface that you
can optionally implement to get some IDE support.
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 05:15:34 +0100, D&J Gredler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Also true... but not by default. I'm just mentioning the downsides,
making
sure we're clear on the tradeoffs involved.
On 12/21/06, andyhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
D&J Gredler wrote:
> So basically testability and backwards compatibility. I mourn the loss
of
> IDE support for refactoring, reference searching, etc, but I see your
> point.
> Thanks for clearing things up!
You can always have your own base class - anyhow you like!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
