On May 27, 2004, at 3:32 PM, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
Change the name of the existing property to something private.
For what?
What sense to leave them?
Property 'Name' will be simulated by METHODS now.
Because you can't have a property and a method with the same name ?
Then Name() and Name(assigns s as string) manipulate that private
member in VTable
You mean that I need create METHOD
Table_get_Name()
{
return Table_GetName() // existed method?
}
I do not see sense for this.
First of all because this is additional call.
Absolutely not needed.
If you want it to work it is
And nothing else knows or cares as long as they continue to use Name
as
though it were a property.
I've done this. In both RB code and plugins.
Norman, please understand me correctly.
I know HOW resolve task.
I DO NOT like this way.
I believe that something WRONG in this way.
It's what REAL has given us to work with.
I do like the idea of extending an existing interface, but until we
have better name scoping and can have properties and methods with the
sames names this is what we have to work with.
We MUST NOT change class and its Properties methods in dependence if
this
class inherited from Interface or no.
If you want to add create an interface that has methods with the same
name as public properties in the class that is implementing the
interface it is.
That's just the way it is.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|