The Weird and The Wonderful

gajatko wrote:

In this semester I've got a new subject: "Object-oriented programming".
[Bogus misuse of object orientation]

VentsyV wrote:

ClassNameBase has nothing to do with anything at all.

ClassNameBase myclass = new ClassNameBase();
ClassName concreteImpl = myClass;

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

ClassNameBase myclass = new ClassNameBase();ClassName concreteImpl = myClass;
I'm not sure how useful this would be, but it could be done.

VentsyV wrote:

The constructor is internal and the class is in a DLL, therefore you can't create an instance of the class either.

Pete O'Hanlon wrote:

If the class is laid out without any other members (as in the OP) then this wouldn't be it.

leppie wrote:

That is correct, but it's likely the library writer wants to expose the instance via a member, but still disallow instantiation

VentsyV wrote:

There is no way you can create any instance of this class, as it is in assembly by itself.

public sealed class TextBuffer
{
  internal TextBuffer(AdvancedTextBox atb) { ... }
}

public class AdvancedTextBox
{
  public TextBuffer Buffer {get {return buffer;}}
  public AdvancedTextBox()
  {
    buffer = new TextBuffer(this);
  }
}

Philip Laureano wrote:

Every time someone calls it "codes" instead of "code", it feels like I'm getting stabbed in the ear with a ice pick. Does anyone else here get the same feeling when people can't seem to say things correctly when it comes to programming?

Philip Laureano wrote:

Every time someone calls it "codes" instead of "code", it feels like I'm getting stabbed in the ear with a ice pick.

Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:

How about "softwares"?

Philip Laureano wrote:

My favorite one has to be when someone pronounces C# as "C Pound"...