Why does inheritance even exist?
-
Source: http://www.codeproject.com/Answers/80124/Problem-regarding-confilcting-Class-names.aspx#answer1[^] Important Quote: Thanks for answering, i got your point. But in my case, B.Bar doesn't inherit A.Base. Both A and B have totally different implementations and don't reference each other. But both provides same functionality, same methods, same properties. So, i want to use functionality of both namespaces without creating different objects for their classes. Am I not the only one who's thinking "Polymorphism and Programming to an interface?" (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa260635%28VS.60%29.aspx[^])
-
Source: http://www.codeproject.com/Answers/80124/Problem-regarding-confilcting-Class-names.aspx#answer1[^] Important Quote: Thanks for answering, i got your point. But in my case, B.Bar doesn't inherit A.Base. Both A and B have totally different implementations and don't reference each other. But both provides same functionality, same methods, same properties. So, i want to use functionality of both namespaces without creating different objects for their classes. Am I not the only one who's thinking "Polymorphism and Programming to an interface?" (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa260635%28VS.60%29.aspx[^])
Josh_Jackson wrote:
Am I not the only one who's thinking
Ignoring the implicit double negative in my reply, no you aren't the only one who thinks he should code to the interface.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
Source: http://www.codeproject.com/Answers/80124/Problem-regarding-confilcting-Class-names.aspx#answer1[^] Important Quote: Thanks for answering, i got your point. But in my case, B.Bar doesn't inherit A.Base. Both A and B have totally different implementations and don't reference each other. But both provides same functionality, same methods, same properties. So, i want to use functionality of both namespaces without creating different objects for their classes. Am I not the only one who's thinking "Polymorphism and Programming to an interface?" (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa260635%28VS.60%29.aspx[^])
"C/C++ (I dont see a huge difference between them, and the 'benefits' of C++ are questionable, who needs inheritance when you have copy and paste)" -- fat_boy :)
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
Source: http://www.codeproject.com/Answers/80124/Problem-regarding-confilcting-Class-names.aspx#answer1[^] Important Quote: Thanks for answering, i got your point. But in my case, B.Bar doesn't inherit A.Base. Both A and B have totally different implementations and don't reference each other. But both provides same functionality, same methods, same properties. So, i want to use functionality of both namespaces without creating different objects for their classes. Am I not the only one who's thinking "Polymorphism and Programming to an interface?" (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa260635%28VS.60%29.aspx[^])
-
Josh_Jackson wrote:
Am I not the only one who's thinking
Ignoring the implicit double negative in my reply, no you aren't the only one who thinks he should code to the interface.
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Ignoring the implicit double negative in my reply
??? Wither the double negative? "No" is a reply to the question, and "aren't" is the main verb of a separate clause. The only step required for perfection would be the addition of a comma to separate the clauses.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Ignoring the implicit double negative in my reply
??? Wither the double negative? "No" is a reply to the question, and "aren't" is the main verb of a separate clause. The only step required for perfection would be the addition of a comma to separate the clauses.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
The "implicit" referred to the OP using "not" and my reply being "no".
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
-
The "implicit" referred to the OP using "not" and my reply being "no".
"WPF has many lovers. It's a veritable porn star!" - Josh Smith
As Braveheart once said, "You can take our freedom but you'll never take our Hobnobs!" - Martin Hughes.
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
The "implicit" referred to the OP using "not" and my reply being "no".
That's one of the niceties of English -- "Am I A" and "Am I not A" are completely synonymous, when used copularly (i.e. where A is an adjective) because they both state: "Is A a true attribute of the subject of the verb?", and so an honest-to-goodness negator is not being used, hence no double negative (just a difference in stress). There's nothing wrong with double negatives, anyway. It's when they're used by mistake that there's an error -- but it's the mistake that causes the error, not the double negative itself.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Source: http://www.codeproject.com/Answers/80124/Problem-regarding-confilcting-Class-names.aspx#answer1[^] Important Quote: Thanks for answering, i got your point. But in my case, B.Bar doesn't inherit A.Base. Both A and B have totally different implementations and don't reference each other. But both provides same functionality, same methods, same properties. So, i want to use functionality of both namespaces without creating different objects for their classes. Am I not the only one who's thinking "Polymorphism and Programming to an interface?" (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa260635%28VS.60%29.aspx[^])
Josh_Jackson wrote:
Both A and B have totally different implementations and don't reference each other. But both provides same functionality, same methods, same properties.
Uh. Am I the only that doesn't understand how they can be different and yet the same? Marc
-
Josh_Jackson wrote:
Both A and B have totally different implementations and don't reference each other. But both provides same functionality, same methods, same properties.
Uh. Am I the only that doesn't understand how they can be different and yet the same? Marc
Two different versions of the same third-party library... He clarified it in comments. He's trying to support both... It'd actually be a reasonable question if he'd explained that right at the start... As is, it looks like Comp Sci 101.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
The "implicit" referred to the OP using "not" and my reply being "no".
That's one of the niceties of English -- "Am I A" and "Am I not A" are completely synonymous, when used copularly (i.e. where A is an adjective) because they both state: "Is A a true attribute of the subject of the verb?", and so an honest-to-goodness negator is not being used, hence no double negative (just a difference in stress). There's nothing wrong with double negatives, anyway. It's when they're used by mistake that there's an error -- but it's the mistake that causes the error, not the double negative itself.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Mark Wallace wrote:
it's the mistake that causes the error, not the double negative itself
you're absolutely positively not wrong here. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles]
If you want my opinion or comment, ask in a forum or on my profile page; I will not participate in frackin' Q&A