DEAL John M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> That's cool (that's real not sarcastic), it's good to know > the real reason for why it happens (and that it's not > something we did wrong). I still think maybe the > implementation leaves a bit to be desired, but hey it's a > first release and maybe there was no way around it anyway. I > still would place it pretty high my wish list (along with > visual inheritance for webforms). Heheh, I just noticed I wrote: >> <codeSnippet language="C#"> So used to typing that, obviously should have been: language="CIL" Anyway, yes I agree. It's a limitation that kinda sucks, but at the same time I can see exactly where it stems from. Given the way they chose to do design, it's just impossible today. I don't actually think there's anything wrong with the way they chose to implement designing either and the obvious workaround is to go with the virtual approach John Lam originally suggested. Then this only sucks from the point of view that the base class and it's methods is not declaritively abstract, so instead your developers need to be told via documentation instead. Odds are this isn't that big a deal because from the sound of it, it's a private architecture. Later, Drew NET MVP You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com. You can read messages from the DOTNET archive, unsubscribe from DOTNET, or subscribe to other DevelopMentor lists at http://discuss.develop.com.