[Flashcoders] extends implements

2008-01-10 Thread Hans Wichman
Hi folks,

I was wondering about your personal/professional preference regarding the
following.

Say you have an interface IEvent and a base class Event which implements
IEvent.

Now you are creating an event subclass MyEvent which can:
- implement IEvent
- extend Event
- both

In other words, would you when choosing to extend Event still declare it as
an implementation of IEvent for the sake of readability:
class MyEvent extends Event implements IEvent OR
simply class MyEvent extends Event

I see pro's and con's to the both of them, but I guess I'm looking to see if
there is some sort of 'why declaring blablahb is evil'.

I guess I'm used to adding the implements clause as well, since it allows me
to change the superclass and testing whether I still adhere to the required
interface by compiling that class instead of compiling any source that uses
it. In addition I hope it prevents people from declaring variables like var
a:Event instead var a:IEvent...

tnx in advance.
JC
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders


Re: [Flashcoders] extends implements

2008-01-10 Thread Andy Herrman
I normally just declare the extends, as the docs for the base class
would already show that it fits the interface.  However, in my AS2
code (I'm also working in java, C#, and C++ right now) I've started
declaring the interfaces as well.  The reason I started doing that is
that the documentation generator I'm using (as2api) doesn't seem to
properly inherit the documentation from the interface unless I
explicitly declare it.

  -Andy

On Jan 10, 2008 3:11 AM, Hans Wichman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi folks,

 I was wondering about your personal/professional preference regarding the
 following.

 Say you have an interface IEvent and a base class Event which implements
 IEvent.

 Now you are creating an event subclass MyEvent which can:
 - implement IEvent
 - extend Event
 - both

 In other words, would you when choosing to extend Event still declare it as
 an implementation of IEvent for the sake of readability:
 class MyEvent extends Event implements IEvent OR
 simply class MyEvent extends Event

 I see pro's and con's to the both of them, but I guess I'm looking to see if
 there is some sort of 'why declaring blablahb is evil'.

 I guess I'm used to adding the implements clause as well, since it allows me
 to change the superclass and testing whether I still adhere to the required
 interface by compiling that class instead of compiling any source that uses
 it. In addition I hope it prevents people from declaring variables like var
 a:Event instead var a:IEvent...

 tnx in advance.
 JC
 ___
 Flashcoders mailing list
 Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
 http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders

___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders


Re: [Flashcoders] extends implements

2008-01-10 Thread Cory Petosky
I declare the implements as well, because FDT doesn't seem to infer
interface inheritance. Without explicitly declaring the implements, I get
extraneous error notifications.

On 1/10/08, Andy Herrman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I normally just declare the extends, as the docs for the base class
 would already show that it fits the interface.  However, in my AS2
 code (I'm also working in java, C#, and C++ right now) I've started
 declaring the interfaces as well.  The reason I started doing that is
 that the documentation generator I'm using (as2api) doesn't seem to
 properly inherit the documentation from the interface unless I
 explicitly declare it.

   -Andy

 On Jan 10, 2008 3:11 AM, Hans Wichman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
  Hi folks,
 
  I was wondering about your personal/professional preference regarding
 the
  following.
 
  Say you have an interface IEvent and a base class Event which implements
  IEvent.
 
  Now you are creating an event subclass MyEvent which can:
  - implement IEvent
  - extend Event
  - both
 
  In other words, would you when choosing to extend Event still declare it
 as
  an implementation of IEvent for the sake of readability:
  class MyEvent extends Event implements IEvent OR
  simply class MyEvent extends Event
 
  I see pro's and con's to the both of them, but I guess I'm looking to
 see if
  there is some sort of 'why declaring blablahb is evil'.
 
  I guess I'm used to adding the implements clause as well, since it
 allows me
  to change the superclass and testing whether I still adhere to the
 required
  interface by compiling that class instead of compiling any source that
 uses
  it. In addition I hope it prevents people from declaring variables like
 var
  a:Event instead var a:IEvent...
 
  tnx in advance.
  JC
  ___
  Flashcoders mailing list
  Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
  http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders
 
 ___
 Flashcoders mailing list
 Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
 http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders




-- 
Cory Petosky : Lead Developer : PUNY
1618 Central Ave NE Suite 130
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Office: 612.216.3924
Mobile: 240.422.9652
Fax: 612.605.9216
http://www.punyentertainment.com
___
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders