"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> How about this.T1.s() ?

Tried that also: "variable T1 not found in class [enclosing class name]"

"Kris" <someidiot@earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote in message news:c95v73$28bu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> > How about this.T1.s() ?
>
> Tried that also: "variable T1 not found in class [enclosing class name]"

At this point, I guess I will abandon worrying about how Java handles it <g> and move on.

Roger that   :~)

You have a more flexible approach.


"Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:c9684i$2kkc$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Kris" <someidiot@earthlink.dot.dot.dot.net> wrote in message news:c95v73$28bu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
> > > How about this.T1.s() ?
> >
> > Tried that also: "variable T1 not found in class [enclosing class name]"
>
> At this point, I guess I will abandon worrying about how Java handles it
<g>
> and move on.
>
>

In article <c95h7a$1jit$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Kris says...
>
>"Ant" wrote:
>> ah... code first and ask question later... ;)
>
>The only way to be absolutely sure someone won't screw with a class implementation is to make everything private <g>. One can essentially guarantee someone will (deliberately or accidently) find a way to subvert any initial assumptions. A reasonable approach to avoid much of this is to make two version of each clearly abusable class: an immutable, plus a mutable subclass. Although that doesn't have much (if any) bearing on the current topic.
>
>
>> (What would you call it? "sometimes polimorphic"?)
>
>"AC/DC" :-)  Ok, Ok, this is a serious topic.

Yes, and I don't think we should have a way to do it.
either a method is virtual or it's not.
well, it's more of a feel. I didn't do any deep analizes.
But I think I should the more I think of this the more dangerous
it seems.

I'll try read Walter's posts here (tonight) to see if an emergency
post against this is necessary.

Ant