Shouldn't it be:
public function set data(value:*):void
{
_data = value;
}
Jamie
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:58 AM, bmsleite <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I hope you guys can help me out with this doubt regarding interfaces that
> extends from other interfaces.
>
> The scenario is the following:
>
> ImplementationClass -implements-> InterfaceB -extends-> InterfaceA
>
> A code example:
>
> public interface InterfaceA
> {
> function get data():*;
> }
>
> public interface InterfaceB extends InterfaceA
> {
> function set data(value:*):void;
> }
>
> public class ImplementationClass implements InterfaceB
> {
> private var _data:*;
>
> public function Implementation(){}
>
> public function set data(value:*):void
> {
> _data = data;
> }
>
> public function get data():*
> {
> return _data;
> }
>
> }
>
> Now, the question is, is this possible? If I write something like this:
>
> var impl:InterfaceB = new ImplementationClass();
> impl.data = "something";
>
> Should this be possible? Well, possible I know that it isn't because this
> gives me an "Ambigous reference to data" error, but isn't this a logical
> implementation, am I missing something here?
>
> Probably the cause for this behaviour has to do with the way that getters
> and setters are implemented in AS3, if that's the case, can anyone explain
> me, or give me some ideas how this works internally?
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Bruno Leite
>
>
>
