Hi Jaime, Thank you for your answer, and yes, you are right, there's a little mistake on the code (I wrote it without testing... my bad).
However, the error is still there: "Ambigous reference to data". Any ideas? Bruno Leite --- In [email protected], Jamie S <jsjph...@...> wrote: > > Shouldn't it be: > > public function set data(value:*):void > { > _data = value; > } > > Jamie > > On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:58 AM, bmsleite <bmsle...@...> 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 > > > > > > >
