I had never thought of doing that! Cheers.
-Original Message-
From: Paul Gaske [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 2:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Tricky little issue..
I'm not sure if this is of interest to you, but I just did
d is that's whats really
important?
- Alex
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Poole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Tricky little issue..
John,
> Sorry, forgot the :) on the "syntactic sugar&quo
ssage-
From: Charlie Poole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:31 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Tricky little issue..
John,
> Sorry, forgot the :) on the "syntactic sugar" remark ...
Not sure I would have interpreted it correc
ave the best of both worlds;
thus I stick with the verbose method.
joe
-Original Message-
From: John St. Clair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 9:33 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Tricky little issue..
I'm not sure you *should* be able to do
> Is there a way to get round this (without creating a set accessor in
the
> interface/NormalUser object and throwing an exception in it's method)
-
> properties in reality are functions (right?) so I should be able to do
> this
> from the CLR's point of view.
I haven't tried this recently, but I
John,
> Sorry, forgot the :) on the "syntactic sugar" remark ...
Not sure I would have interpreted it correctly anyway.
> > I think properties are *more* than syntactic sugar - although they
> > are often described as such. This example shows why: once you have
> > described a property as NOT b
Sorry, forgot the :) on the "syntactic sugar" remark ...
> I think properties are *more* than syntactic sugar - although they
> are often described as such. This example shows why: once you have
> described a property as NOT being settable, derived classes can't
> change that. This is similar to
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Moderated discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:ADVANCED-
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ian Griffiths
> > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 3:16 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Tri
