Why don't Managed Classes support: const, virtual, and static?
From: Peteroid (peter_oliphant_at_msn.com)
Date: 12/04/04
- Next message: Ken Wickes [MSFT]: "Re: SDK dialog editor"
- Previous message: Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]: "Re: Un-ringing the bell: making parent methods unavailable to children"
- Next in thread: Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]: "Re: Why don't Managed Classes support: const, virtual, and static?"
- Reply: Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]: "Re: Why don't Managed Classes support: const, virtual, and static?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 16:49:25 -0800
Why don't managed classes (i.e., _gc garbage-collected classes) support
'const', 'virtual', and 'static'? Is there a reason they can't, or is these
possibly going to be supported in the future?
Thanks in advance...
[==Peteroid==]
- Next message: Ken Wickes [MSFT]: "Re: SDK dialog editor"
- Previous message: Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]: "Re: Un-ringing the bell: making parent methods unavailable to children"
- Next in thread: Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]: "Re: Why don't Managed Classes support: const, virtual, and static?"
- Reply: Ronald Laeremans [MSFT]: "Re: Why don't Managed Classes support: const, virtual, and static?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|