H
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
* "Cor said:
I am waiting for Fergus to come back. Now he preferrs to stand outside
the community. I am sure he knows that he is welcome, but he needs some
more time to change his habits.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I am waiting for Fergus to come back. Now he preferrs to stand outside
the community. I am sure he knows that he is welcome, but he needs some
more time to change his habits.
F
Fergus Cooney
Herfried,
I will continue to correct you when you make ridiculous statements about
me. It would be much better for everyone if you expressed your various angers
in the threads which have been previously taken over.
You are being very inconsiderate in using Joe Fallon's thread (and others)
to mouth off. It's fine when the OP has been answered and gone their way -
then you can treat a thread as you like. Until then it is much more respectful
to the OP, and everyone else, if you place your emotional OT words in the
fighting areas provided.
=====================
Keep it out of the mainstream.
=====================
Fergus
I will continue to correct you when you make ridiculous statements about
me. It would be much better for everyone if you expressed your various angers
in the threads which have been previously taken over.
You are being very inconsiderate in using Joe Fallon's thread (and others)
to mouth off. It's fine when the OP has been answered and gone their way -
then you can treat a thread as you like. Until then it is much more respectful
to the OP, and everyone else, if you place your emotional OT words in the
fighting areas provided.
=====================
Keep it out of the mainstream.
=====================
Fergus
H
Herfried K. Wagner [MVP]
* "Fergus Cooney" <[email protected]> scripsit:
[...]
Please email me things like that and do not annoy the community by your
spam posts. Just remove the "spam-me-here" part of my mail address and
reply to it instead of destroying the group.
[...]
Please email me things like that and do not annoy the community by your
spam posts. Just remove the "spam-me-here" part of my mail address and
reply to it instead of destroying the group.
F
Fergus Cooney
Take this to the other thread.
S
Scott M.
Not ignoring, but don't see any reply from you at all to this message prior
to mine. So, thanks for the attitude.
to mine. So, thanks for the attitude.
S
Scott M.
Thanks Jay. I am aware of how OverRides and Shadows work (which is why I
suggested Shared in my second reply). I was just unaware that a class
member couldn't be marked as both Shared and OverRideable.
As for the rest of the bickerring in this thread, let me just say that I
don't see anything from Fergus on Shadows prior to my reply to Joe's
question, so I'm sorry if I repeated what he said.
suggested Shared in my second reply). I was just unaware that a class
member couldn't be marked as both Shared and OverRideable.
As for the rest of the bickerring in this thread, let me just say that I
don't see anything from Fergus on Shadows prior to my reply to Joe's
question, so I'm sorry if I repeated what he said.
F
Fergus Cooney
Hi Scott,
I think the apologies are mine. My message reads terribly on second look.
I meant to say that the answer to your question was yes and that there was
more information in my other post. The ignoring idea crept in and the wording
turned out badly. Sorry about that.
Regards,
Fergus
I think the apologies are mine. My message reads terribly on second look.
I meant to say that the answer to your question was yes and that there was
more information in my other post. The ignoring idea crept in and the wording
turned out badly. Sorry about that.
Regards,
Fergus
J
Jay B. Harlow [MVP - Outlook]
Scott,
Looking at the dates & times, Fergus's response was about 45 minutes after
your response, So when you gave your initial response it was not yet
available. My response was about 12 hours later, so I saw both of your
responses.
and I attempt to avoid "static". I referenced Fergus's response as I saw his
response and I did not want to duplicate the information for you. As at that
point in time, you could have simply read Fergus's response.
share of these developers are coming from Delphi, as I am only really aware
of Delphi has the ability. I see value it allowing it, however my concern is
It raises the bar yet again of how much you really need to know to be an
effective .NET programmer. As oppose to "being little kids" and either
avoiding the features of .NET or abusing the features. Because they either
don't understand the feature or you don't know the feature exists. Or worse,
"we did it this way in VB6, so obviously we can do it the sam way in
VB.NET".
I have not seen anything in the road map that would suggest we are getting
it in VS.NET 2004.
Hope this helps
Jay
Looking at the dates & times, Fergus's response was about 45 minutes after
your response, So when you gave your initial response it was not yet
available. My response was about 12 hours later, so I saw both of your
responses.
I would not worry about it. My comments are not meant to degrade or insult,question, so I'm sorry if I repeated what he said.
and I attempt to avoid "static". I referenced Fergus's response as I saw his
response and I did not want to duplicate the information for you. As at that
point in time, you could have simply read Fergus's response.
A number of developers have been asking for the ability, I believe a fairI was just unaware that a class
member couldn't be marked as both Shared and OverRideable.
share of these developers are coming from Delphi, as I am only really aware
of Delphi has the ability. I see value it allowing it, however my concern is
It raises the bar yet again of how much you really need to know to be an
effective .NET programmer. As oppose to "being little kids" and either
avoiding the features of .NET or abusing the features. Because they either
don't understand the feature or you don't know the feature exists. Or worse,
"we did it this way in VB6, so obviously we can do it the sam way in
VB.NET".
I have not seen anything in the road map that would suggest we are getting
it in VS.NET 2004.
Hope this helps
Jay
S
Scott M.
Thanks Jay.
Jay B. Harlow said:Scott,
Looking at the dates & times, Fergus's response was about 45 minutes after
your response, So when you gave your initial response it was not yet
available. My response was about 12 hours later, so I saw both of your
responses.
I would not worry about it. My comments are not meant to degrade or insult,
and I attempt to avoid "static". I referenced Fergus's response as I saw his
response and I did not want to duplicate the information for you. As at that
point in time, you could have simply read Fergus's response.
A number of developers have been asking for the ability, I believe a fair
share of these developers are coming from Delphi, as I am only really aware
of Delphi has the ability. I see value it allowing it, however my concern is
It raises the bar yet again of how much you really need to know to be an
effective .NET programmer. As oppose to "being little kids" and either
avoiding the features of .NET or abusing the features. Because they either
don't understand the feature or you don't know the feature exists. Or worse,
"we did it this way in VB6, so obviously we can do it the sam way in
VB.NET".
I have not seen anything in the road map that would suggest we are getting
it in VS.NET 2004.
Hope this helps
Jay
method 2
S
Scott M.
No problem Fergus. Thanks.
J
Joe Fallon
I just got back from a business trip and this is the first chance I have had
to look at this thread.
I would like to thank all of you for providing me with so much information.
I won' t be able to test it for a few days but I am leaning towards the use
of Shadows right now.
It may be good enough but I am not 100% sure.
I do have a Singleton class so I am familiar with that concept.
(I use it for Read/Write app settings.)
I am looking for a way to use the Shared methods and still give my co-worker
the ability to get a custom behavior in the 4th level. (We would "never"
call directly into levels 1,2 3.)
I am sure I will be back with more questions!
Thanks again for the spirited discussion.
to look at this thread.
I would like to thank all of you for providing me with so much information.
I won' t be able to test it for a few days but I am leaning towards the use
of Shadows right now.
It may be good enough but I am not 100% sure.
I do have a Singleton class so I am familiar with that concept.
(I use it for Read/Write app settings.)
I am looking for a way to use the Shared methods and still give my co-worker
the ability to get a custom behavior in the 4th level. (We would "never"
call directly into levels 1,2 3.)
I am sure I will be back with more questions!
Thanks again for the spirited discussion.
J
Joe Fallon
Initial testing shows that Shadows does what I am looking for!
In my 4th level class I can opt to "do nothing" in which case I get the
standard functions available in the 3 levels above it. But if I want to
replace specific functionality with "custom" code I can use syntax like
this:
Public Shared Shadows Function DoSomething() As String
Return "Custom String"
End Function
I think this will work for me.
So thanks again to all for their input!
In my 4th level class I can opt to "do nothing" in which case I get the
standard functions available in the 3 levels above it. But if I want to
replace specific functionality with "custom" code I can use syntax like
this:
Public Shared Shadows Function DoSomething() As String
Return "Custom String"
End Function
I think this will work for me.
So thanks again to all for their input!
F
Fergus Cooney
;-))
S
scorpion53061
Fergus,
Please see the thread entitled "Ole Container" and if you have input please
help.....
Please see the thread entitled "Ole Container" and if you have input please
help.....