[Flashcoders] extends implements
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
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
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
