Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: "Mark Wilden" <mwilden@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:14:06 -0800
"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1fe129a7491671eb98d6ba@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
And that's fine - but within a C# context, when talking about the type
system, it makes to only use C# terms for their C# meaning.
I agree - if to do otherwise would be confusing. I didn't find that
definition confusing (and I'm sure you didn't either).
And if someone were trying to define the C# "as" operator in terms
using "is" but redefining the word "as" to mean something else, I'd
have problems with that too!
I'm don't see how that applies. We're not talking about defining "interface"
any more than this sentence is talking about defining "defining." We're
using an implied (and obvious, IMO) meaning of "interface" to define a C#
concept. Again, I think it would be bad if that usage lead to confusion, but
it doesn't seem to.
///ark
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
- Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: Dustin Campbell
- Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- References:
- Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: garyusenet
- Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: Jeff Louie
- Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
- Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: Mark Wilden
- Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- From: Jon Skeet [C# MVP]
- Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- Prev by Date: Display Active Directory Users in a ListBox
- Next by Date: Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- Previous by thread: Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- Next by thread: Re: Is Class Synonymous with Type?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|