Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

VB6, Inheritance or no?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

O.Taylor

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
Does anyone know if Microsoft is including inheritance as a part of the
Visual Basic 6.0 release?

Don Murray

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
No. At least not implementation inheritance. Interface inheritance has been
a part of VB since v5.0 (see Implements keyword).

O.Taylor wrote in message <35BF642C...@pss.boeing.com>...

Jason Bock

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
>Does anyone know if Microsoft is including inheritance as a part of the
>Visual Basic 6.0 release?

Nope. It's not a fault necessarily with VB, but with COM. VB objects are
COM objects, and since the current version of COM does not support
implementation inheritence, neither will VB (maybe COM+ will, but that's
still up in the air the last time I heard anything about it).

Jason

Joel Shepherd

unread,
Jul 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/29/98
to
Which leaves me wondering (still, yet, again), why not hold off on VB6
until COM+ is a reality? Oh well. I've been complaining too much about
this lately...

Joe We are Borg Foster

unread,
Jul 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM7/30/98
to
In article <6pofqt$o...@newsops.execpc.com>, jrb...@execpc.com (Jason Bock) writes:

> >Does anyone know if Microsoft is including inheritance as a part of the
> >Visual Basic 6.0 release?

> Nope. It's not a fault necessarily with VB, but with COM. VB objects are
> COM objects, and since the current version of COM does not support
> implementation inheritence, neither will VB (maybe COM+ will, but that's
> still up in the air the last time I heard anything about it).

I really don't see why it couldn't, even with the present COM
spec. After all, we kludge implementation inheritance all the
time ourselves with COM. VB could just do the same thing
internally and hide the ugliness from us and whoever inherits our
code! It should be optional, perhaps with an InheritImplementation
property or option on each IMPLEMENTS.

--
Joe Foster <mailto:jfo...@ricochet.net> Spam is irrelevant. Assimilate this:
<ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/softlib/index.txt> Microsoft's master patch list
<ftp://ftp.microsoft.com/softlib/mslfiles/> MS I got yer patch right here!
<http://www.microsoft.com/msdn/> MS Knowledge Base & more
<http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml> Usenet search and archival engine
<http://www.altavista.digital.com> WWW *and* Usenet search engine
WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!

VBDis

unread,
Aug 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM8/3/98
to
Im Artikel <11...@bftsi0.UUCP>, j...@bftsi0.UUCP (Joe "We are Borg" Foster)
schreibt:

>It should be optional, perhaps with an InheritImplementation
>property or option on each IMPLEMENTS.

A fine idea! I'd suggest the syntax:

Inherit <objectvar> As <baseclass>

This would tell VB to create an instance of the base class, together with all
forwarders.

My first attempt, after I came across the need to write all that code, was the
creation of an add-in, that would create the forwarders automagically. But
unfortunately I didn't find all the procedures, that should be implemented :-(

DoDi

0 new messages