Another thing just popped into mind: Consider an inheritance chain where at some level a class only defines static features (but inherits dynamic features from ancestral classes).
If "only static feautures" presumed "non-instantiable class" then this would break subsequent inheritance. regards Bruce p.s. I have had a bit of a look around the web and this concept of "static" = "non-instantiable" seems to be an idea of a certain North American software company whose products are of limited appeal to the majority of Linux users :-) I might have to see if my old Bertram Meyer text book is in the attic as I am getting more and more sure that "static" means allocated at class level rather than at instance level and nothing more. -- B Bruen <bbr...@paddys-hill.net> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that Matters. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=160591471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Gambas-user mailing list Gambas-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user
