On 09/25/2012 09:18 AM, Funs Seelen wrote:
Hi Thomas,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Thomas Mayer tho...@residuum.org wrote:
Is there any pitfall to that approach? One thing I need to take care for
are creation arguments. Anything else I need to consider?
Speaking about creation
Hi Thomas,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Thomas Mayer tho...@residuum.org wrote:
Is there any pitfall to that approach? One thing I need to take care for
are creation arguments. Anything else I need to consider?
Speaking about creation arguments: if none are given for abstractions
the
- Mail original -
De: Funs Seelen funssee...@gmail.com
Speaking about creation arguments: if none are given for abstractions
the default value is always 0 (at least I never figured out a way
to
give another default value *). For C-objects it is possible to use
any
float value as
De: Patrice Colet colet.patr...@free.fr
De: Funs Seelen funssee...@gmail.com
Speaking about creation arguments: if none are given for
abstractions
the default value is always 0 (at least I never figured out a way
to
give another default value *). For C-objects it is possible to use
Hello,
as I have once again done some on PuREST JSON, I had the idea to split
an object into two seperate objects and provide the original object as
an abstraction with the library, where the abstraction provides exactly
the same semantics and logic of the original object.
Is there any pitfall
