[Gambas-user] JIT compiler debugging
jussi.lahtinen at gmail.com
Tue Oct 9 03:11:46 CEST 2018
I think this all boils down to typesafety.
If in inheritance tree there is exception, where object uses example
boolean instead of integer (to describe something very similar), then I
prefer to override the integer, instead of keeping the integer and giving
it 0 / 1 values.
However, when I look at my code there are only very few instances where I
actually use this (I have no clue about possible OO standards) and it can
be written other way... So at the end, not a big deal for me as I initially
For consistency I think properties shouldn't be allowed to override like
Property y As Object --> Property y As TestClass1
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 2:59 AM Jussi Lahtinen <jussi.lahtinen at gmail.com>
> Sorry, I meant of course:
> "PROPERTY y As Something TO $Something" and as override "PROPERTY y As
> SomethingElse TO $SomethingElse"
> or so...
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 2:55 AM Jussi Lahtinen <jussi.lahtinen at gmail.com>
>> A symbol can only be overriden with a symbol of the same kind in a child
>> What I did used to work. That is fact. Thus the whole bug report relating
>> to JIT (where it did not work).
>>> And if you use a symbol Y as a public variable in a class, then I don't
>>> see any reason why overriding it by another public variable would be
>> To avoid writing eight lines instead of one line. Is that not useful? If
>> not, why?
>> I don't see any relation with having a syntax to quickly declare a
>>> property and the private variable it is associated with.
>> Because they are *functionally* equivalent to how things were before
>> forbidding overriding public variables.
>> "Public y As Something" and as override "Public y As SomethingElse".
>> "PROPERTY y As String TO Something" and as override "PROPERTY y As
>> String TO SomethingElse"
>> Thus no need to write eight lines!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the User