>>>What's the point of the "abstract" classes?

>I'm still a bit confused. I still don't see the point of the "abstract" classes.
>
>I understand not creating objects from VFP's BaseClasses since I would have no way to add functionality to them.
>And I understand not creating objects from _base.vcx classes, since I would want to allow future updates from VFP to replace them.
>I would want to create by own myBase classes from either the BaseClass or _base.vcx (if I want all VFP's overhead) and use them to create objects with.
>
>Assuming that I create myBase classes from the VFP's BaseClasses, I'm guessing that they would be the abstract classes that you're talking about. Now why wouldn't I want to create objects with them? Why would I then want to sub-class them again into a "concrete" class?


Think of them as "blueprints" (really placeholders), showing what could be done, and why they are there. In the "concrete" instance is where you put the real funcionality that is needed for your particular project.