At 10:12 AM -0500 3/20/03, Charles Yeomans wrote:
I have found a few glitches, though. You cannot do the following.
Sub Foo(v as Variant)
Sub Foo(obj as Object)
Well sure, since a Variant is an Object, and so it's just like this case:
Now, you also cannot do the following.
Sub Foo( obj as Object)
Sub Foo(w as Window)
There you go.
But this makes sense, because here the overloading is ambiguous.
But a Variant is not an Object
Here's your mistaken assumption (or perhaps it's documented incorrectly?).
, not is an Object a Variant, so it seems to be that the first code
snippet should compile.
(Bug ID = guqrdpth)
I assume you have no objection if we close this feedback record?
Next, suppose you define Sub Foo(v() as Variant). Then the
following code compiles.
dim list(-1) as String
Test list
What is Test? Did you mean to define Sub Test?
But the following code does not.
dim list(-1) as Object
Test list
I'm surprised either one compiles -- I didn't think we could convert
an array of something else into an array of variants.
Best,
- Joe
--
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout REAL Software, Inc. |
| joe at realsoftware dot com http://www.realsoftware.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
---
A searchable archive of this list is available at:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/search.php>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:realbasic-nug-off at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:realbasic-nug-digest at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
.
|