You shouldn't need to do any typecasting. Casting upon assignment of
a Variant to an object reference or datatype variable is handled at
runtime. You would need to be prepared to handle
IllegalCastExceptions and TypeMismatchExceptions.
Charles Yeomans
On Oct 23, 2006, at 9:05 PM, William Squires wrote:
<snick>
Of course you could use a Variant which would be the closest
'generic' solution as far as type-compatibility goes, but you would
still have to typecast any object references retrieved from the
array, as well as knowing which array elements held object
references so you could typecast them.
On Oct 23, 2006, at 1:57 AM, Jay Rimalrick wrote:
I am trying to make an iterator class. My plan is to
make a new class with an "array" as the super class
and then add some new "iterator" methods like java
has. However, I can't seem to get an array as the
super class. When I type array in the super class
text box it disappears and there is not an array
option to choose from the drop down box. RB is
obviously telling me that I can't use an array as a
super class, however what can I do to reach my
iterator ends?
I thought about making a new class with all of the
array methods simply "wrapped" in methods with exactly
the same name and then adding the iterator methods,
however this plan seems like a crude hack.
_______________________________________________
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>
