If you really want the protected internal you can accomplish something
similar with the following
class FooBase :IFoo {
protected virtual internal void internalbar() {
Console.WriteLine("FooBase");
}
void IFoo.Bar() {
this.internalbar();
}
}
class FooDerived : FooBase, IFoo {
protected internal override void internalbar() {
Console.WriteLine("DerivedFoo");
}
}
On 7/7/06, gregory young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only thing you I don't think you can do is make the explicit
implementation also a protected internal (although this doesn't make much
sense anyways since you are exposing it through a public interface). YOu can
still reimplement the interface without issue.
public interface IFoo {
void Bar();
}
class FooBase :IFoo {
void IFoo.Bar() {
Console.WriteLine("FooBase");
}
}
class FooDerived : FooBase, IFoo {
void IFoo.Bar() {
Console.WriteLine("FooDerived");
}
}
On 7/7/06, Mike Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thank you.
>
> However, that does not help with the idea that a base class implements
> an
> interface and then I re-implement the interface on derived classes where
>
> needed. This is so that ever class that inherits from the base class
> also
> implements the interface, even if I do not re-implement it for the
> derived
> class. But some derived classes will add their own functionality.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
> On 7/7/06, gregory young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > You have to do whats called "explicitly implementing" a interface. See
>
> > http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/4taxa8t2.aspx
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> > On 7/7/06, Mike Andrews < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I have a question that I need some help with in regards to
> implementing
> > an
> > > interface.
> > > I've been a VB programmer for most of my career and now I use
> C#. Some
> > of
> > > the functionality that I used in VB seems to be lacking in C#.
> > > I wanted to know if it's my imagination or if there's a workaround.
> > >
> > > The base problem is that I want to change the access level on
> interface
> > > methods once they are implemented in a class. However, C# seems to
> cry
> > > and
> > > such changes and VB seems to allow them. Here's the example:
> > >
> > > Here's the VB example:
> > >
> > > Public Interface IBusiness
> > >
> > > Sub Remove()
> > > Sub Save()
> > > Property ID() As Guid
> > >
> > > End Interface
> > >
> > > Public MustInherit Class T
> > > Implements IBusiness
> > >
> > > Public MustOverride Sub DoStuff()
> > >
> > > Protected Friend Overridable Property ID() As System.GuidImplements
> > > IBusiness.ID
> > > Get
> > >
> > > End Get
> > > Set(ByVal value As System.Guid)
> > >
> > > End Set
> > > End Property
> > >
> > > Protected Friend Overridable Sub Remove() Implements
> IBusiness.Remove
> > >
> > > End Sub
> > >
> > > Protected Friend Overridable Sub Save() Implements IBusiness.Save
> > >
> > > End Sub
> > >
> > > End Class
> > >
> > > Notice in this example that these methods are the implementation for
> > > IBusiness, but I changed the access modifiers to Protected Friend
> > instead
> > > of
> > > public or something else.
> > >
> > > Now, in C#, if I try to do the same, I get a compiler error:
> > >
> > > public interface IBusiness {
> > >
> > > void Remove();
> > > void Save();
> > > Guid ID { get; set;}
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > public abstract class T: IBusiness {
> > >
> > >
> > > #region IBusiness Members
> > >
> > > public void Remove() {
> > > throw new Exception("The method or operation is not
> > > implemented.");
> > > }
> > >
> > > public void Save() {
> > > throw new Exception("The method or operation is not
> > > implemented.");
> > > }
> > >
> > > public Guid ID {
> > > get {
> > > throw new Exception("The method or operation is not
> > > implemented.");
> > > }
> > > set {
> > > throw new Exception("The method or operation is not
> > > implemented.");
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > #endregion
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > If I change the public members to protected or private I get an
> > error. If
> > > I
> > > change them to explicit implementation, then I cannot access them
> > > regardless
> > > unless I cast to the interface.
> > >
> > > What I'm want to do is implement an interface in a base class (so
> that I
> > > don't have to implement it in every derived class) and then
> > "re-implement"
> > > for the derived class where necessary but have a protected internal
> > access
> > > modifier.
> > >
> > > Any suggestions or am I barking up the wrong tree here?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > ===================================
> > > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com
> > >
> > > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > > http://discuss.develop.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we
> can
> > solve them.
> >
> > Isaac Asimov
> >
> > ===================================
> > This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com
> >
> > View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> > http://discuss.develop.com
> >
>
> ===================================
> This list is hosted by DevelopMentor(r) http://www.develop.com
>
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at
> http://discuss.develop.com
>
--
If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them.
Isaac Asimov
--
If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can
solve them.
Isaac Asimov
===================================
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com
View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
