> The original poster was very explicitly talking about a *class* object, > not an *instance* object, which is why I didn't provide this pretty > standard part -- it doesn't work on class-objects (nor modules, &c). > Actually I was referring to the instance of the class (I use the term "Object" as meaning the instance of the class). Most books I have read use the term "Object" in this manner. Sorry for the confusion. I think the feature I was looking for was something similar to the Options Explicit option of Visual Basic. Sometimes I type fairly quickly and as such have been known to transpose letters. I would have much preferred to catch a compile-time error rather than have to move line-by-line through my code looking for the misspelled term. This wouldn't be a big deal for a small program, but if I planned to develop anything of scale, this could really pose some serious problems. In fact, most authors of Visual Basic advise to turn Options Explicit on because it is a source of problems for the average Visual Basic programmer. I can't imagine it not being a source of bugs, especially when code gets large. I understand that some may see it as a feature, but for me it would be something I would like to turn off. I am coming from the C++ world where if one wanted to extend a class, one would override the base class (or insert into the original class if you had the source) and add any additional variables to the new class. It just seemed odd to me that one could just add things on the fly, but that is just my bias. Robert Johnson
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4