On 11/5/07, Stefan Fußenegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > well, i thought chris' suggestion to use abstract and override in order to > align it with the java keyword/annotation. I don't care whether it is > implement or override (but yes, names are important). i think i'll go for > implement though ... but if it finally becomes part of wicket, it will > become extend/child anyway, wouldn't it?
no it would not. as mentioned numerous times before, we like how it currently works because it aligns with how class inheritance works in java and thus is easy to understand. this would be an in-addion-to feature that people may choose to use. -igor --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
