>You could hard code it using the :: syntax, but I would not recommend that - it's a great way to make it all break when you change something. > >I think this really comes baack to the original design, you needed to put in some Before() and After() hooks so that you could extend it later. > >Your idea of passing a parameter works, sure, but I'd still prefer to have separate methods, because, well, er, because I always do it that way :-) > >[sitting in the Internat Cafe at "Conference to the Max", Arnhem]
Hi Paul,
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, using the :: syntax didn't work (at least not the way I was doing it) and I didn't really like that solution anyway. As to the passing parameters vs two separate methods, I prefer the parms becuz (as I mentioned in my reply to Bob) it keeps all the functionality in one method. I guess that one is a matter of personal preference. < g >
