My lack of experience in other languages is showing, but whats the
advantage of an abstract method? how is that different than an empty
method in the superclass? I assume there's some nicety with compiler
errors, but that would seen to negate the comment about unimplemented
interface methods below.
mike
--
Mike Woodworth
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 2, 2006, at 3:19 PM, Norman Palardy wrote:
On May 02, 2006, at 1:04 PM, Jason Essington wrote:
On May 2, 2006, at 11:35 AM, Norman Palardy wrote:
On May 02, 2006, at 11:23 AM, Jason Essington wrote:
perhaps what would be more appropriate in your situation would
be an abstract class (not yet available in RB, perhaps there
should be a feature request) which can define partial behavior
for a group of objects, while still requiring that some methods
be implemented.
You can get the same behavior of an abstract class by creating a
class that has a private constructor.
That way it cannot be instantiated directly but can be inherited
from.
Right, but you cannot define abstract methods, or implement an
interface and leave some interface methods unimplemented as you
could with a proper abstract class.
True.
it's as close as we can get with RB at the moment
_______________________________________________
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>
