Re: Are windows just ordinary widgets?

Wolfgang Thaller <[email protected]> writes:
> The example implementation already had a "Widget" type; a Widget
> type would be necessary when you want to have heterogenous lists of
> widgets.  That's why somebody brought up the idea of having the
> toWidget and fromWidget functions; Nobody protested when the idea
> was first proposed, so I assumed that it was agreed. 

By itself, there's no problem having a Widget type and to/fromWidget
operations.  After all, with _only_ those two operations, there's not
that much you can do with them.

But, the moment we add additional operations which act on objects of
type Widget and not on objects in the Widget class, my gut tells me
there will be problems.  I was keeping quiet until such operations
were proposed since it'd be easier to point out problems with concrete
examples in front of us.

--
Alastair Reid                 [email protected]  
Reid Consulting (UK) Limited  http://www.reid-consulting-uk.ltd.uk/alastair/