Me writes: : > The problem I see with inheriting subblocks such as : > FIRST/LAST/etc, is that they are tied in with the logic : > ... of their enclosing block... : : Surely this is an argument *for* it being pretty odd : *not* to inherit them. : : Let's say you add a LAST block to a method. In the : LAST block you write clean up code that frees some : resources. If you inherit from that method, and do not : inherit the LAST block, then you've got a leak. This is : obviously a mild example.
I think our terminology is getting sloppy here. What do you mean by "inherit from that method"? If the derived method overrides the base method, it will manage its own resources, and doesn't need the base method's LAST. If the derived method calls the base method, the LAST of the base method will naturally come along for the ride. If there is no derived method, the base method also calls its own LAST as a matter of course. I don't see any problem here. Larry
