>Hi John,
>Am I reading this right?
>You're saying to have "abstract" classes that are not meant to be instantiated into objects, but then have a set of "concrete" classes to use in objects. What's the point of the "abstract" classes? Are these "abstract" classes the same thing as VFP's "foundation classes"?
>
>I'm currently using a set of classes that are derived from VFP's foundation classes. I leave the foundation classes alone (so that future updates can replace them), and use my classes in objects. Is that what you're talking about?
An "abstract" class is any class that is not meant to be used directly, only subclassed. Supposedly, if you don't subclass it, it would be incomplete.
Languages like Pascal allow you to enforce this in the class definition: if a class is defined as "abstract", it can't be used directly.
Hilmar.
Difference in opinions hath cost many millions of lives: for instance, whether flesh be bread, or bread be flesh; whether whistling be a vice or a virtue; whether it be better to kiss a post, or throw it into the fire... (from Gulliver's Travels)
