On May 2, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Charles Kelley wrote:
Hi, all!
On Tue, 2 May 2006 11:23, Jason Essington wrote:
So, technically RS could add the ability to place properties into
an interface, but it is bad form, and should not be (and currently is
not) allowed.
I guess then that once you start adding properties, you create not
a class interface rather a class or an abstract class, right?
-- Charles.
That is pretty much the idea, As soon as you start trying to add
implementation details to an interface, it can no longer be defined
as an interface, but rather is an abstract class.
I kinda wonder why RB doesn't have Abstract classes yet. Is it just
that no one has expressed an interest in their need? Or is it
something that would be difficult to implement? Or would it be a
concept that is just too confusing for the average RB user to grasp?
Mars, what's your take?
I write quite a lot of java code, and use Abstract classes regularly
there, but haven't really been inconvenienced by there absence in
REALbasic. If they were available, I would certainly make use of
them. If anyone else sees a need for Abstract classes in REALbasic, I
would be happy to file a Feature Request.
-jason
_______________________________________________
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>
