On 1 Dec 2012, at 12:34, Sebastian Krebs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Don't want to start a big discussion, but is there a concrete reason, why
> abstract properties (or "a kind of abstract") are not supported?
Hi,
The reason for not having abstract properties is that when you are defining a
type you don'
Here here. :)
On 3/17/2013 5:45 AM, Nikita Popov wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
I'm also interested about the rationale behind this design decision.
Just for the record, this would have been one of the things that the
accessors proposal would have added.
-
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Ferenc Kovacs wrote:
> I'm also interested about the rationale behind this design decision.
>
Just for the record, this would have been one of the things that the
accessors proposal would have added.
2012.12.01. 13:35, "Sebastian Krebs" ezt írta:
>
> Hi,
>
> Don't want to start a big discussion, but is there a concrete reason, why
> abstract properties (or "a kind of abstract") are not supported? I've
> learned, that "an interface [the concept, not the implementations within a
> language] is t
