On 2/14/06, Mars Saxman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2006, at 7:39 AM, Thomas Tempelmann wrote: > > > In a method of the subclass B, I write: > > > > super.x = something > > > > Now, in my rather complex app, I found that the class A would not find > > the property "x" assigned with the value. > > The "super.foo" syntax, like the "classname.foo" syntax it replaced, > has never applied to properties. It exists so that an overriding > method can invoke the inherited original method. Inherited properties > cannot be overridden, so there's no need for a special syntax. Just > call them using "self" or "me", or refer to them directly.
So, shouldn't this be considered a bug then? If the compiler lets me use both constructs, but one gives a different result than the other, although there is effectively no difference (there is only ONE property), then something is not right. If I can use super.x but it does not work, then it should be flagged as an error by the compiler. Basically, "super" should be forbidden to be used with properties. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
