>Hi Peter,
>
>abstract classes are necessary to define the pure interface for your concrete classes. This way you can react to language- and property modifications. From VFP9 point of view this might not be necessary anymore, as there won't be any changes coming by MS, but for me that's no reason to change my behaviour.
I can imagine that at least one child from a base class is 'necessary' or at least useful. But if that child contains ALL that you need in a part of the application (apart from what must be set in the instance itself) then why declare it abstract?
>I remember someone said ( at DEVCON in Frankfurt) that you should use a unchanged inherited class i.e _textbox and a second class atextbox inherited from _textbox which defines additional properties and methods. But I have to admit, that I didn't like the work behind this, as I would have had to reconstruct too many classes...
What was the reasoning for such an 'empty' class?
Groet,
Peter de Valença
Constructive frustration is the breeding ground of genius.
If there’s no willingness to moderate for the sake of good debate, then I have no willingness to debate at all.
Let's develop superb standards that will end the holy wars.
"There are three types of people: Alphas and Betas", said the beta decisively.
If you find this message rude or offensive or stupid, please take a step away from the keyboard and try to think calmly about an eventual a possible alternative explanation of my message.
