On Mon, 29 Aug 2016 01:13:01 +0300 Jussi Lahtinen <jussi.lahti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It's not unnecessary in fact. Imagine if a children not implement the > > property... then it's the property in the parent that is readed. > > > > Yes I know, but in my case it is unnecessary. > But if I understand you correctly then you should be implementing an Error.Raise in those empty methods to trap where a child class has not re-implemented the property! > > > > Another way is to not declare the property in the parent and use an > > object type to walk the children. > > > > > > Dosometing(hChild as Myclass) > > > > dim hObj as Object = hChild > > > > try hObj.DoSomethingElse() > > > > end > > > > Thanks for the suggestion. Though, I hope something more elegant... > > > > Jussi > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Gambas-user mailing list > Gambas-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user And another use we have here for those "empty" methods is to implement a (hackish) trap to enforce a sort of protection i.e. the implementing child must be a particular object type. in other words to prevent say a client program calling the root method class directly. -- B Bruen <adamn...@gnail.com (sort of)> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Gambas-user mailing list Gambas-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user
