I have two pairs of classes that are nearly identical. The
problem is that the differences are where it is awkward. The
differences (apart from comments saying how similar the classes are)
are merely
define class atgettext as textboxbf
vs.
define class atgetedit as textboxbf
and
define class textboxbf as textbox
vs.
define class editboxbf as editbox

Any changes I make to one, I make to the other.

Is there any way to have only one copy of the code?

#include will not work as it specifically ignores VFP statements.
That is too bad, as
define class atgettext as textboxbf
#include "atgetcode.h"
enddefine
define class atgetedit as editboxbf
#include "atgetcode.h"
enddefine
define class textboxbf as textbox
#include "bf.h"
enddefine
define class editboxbf as editbox
#include "bf.h"
enddefine
would have been a very concise solution.

Is there something I am overlooking, or am I stuck with
maintaining two copies of the code?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

You can create a new class with all the PEM's common to both.

In both classes you refer to that bridge class.

in the init event of both classes you could use AddProperty or AddObject to
use that bridge class:
this.AddObject("oBridge", "CBridge") or
this.AddPropertyt("oBridge",createobject "CBridge"))

in the for example the Valid event of both classes you would use:

return this.oBridge.Valid()


Jacobus Terhorst

"Gene Wirchenko" <genew (AT) mail (DOT) ocis.net> wrote

Gene,

if you use those classes *not* very often in your app,
I'ld wrap them in a common container.
But if those controls are your most often used GUI elements,
this will lower form speed if you have many GUI controls.

In that case the above mentioned bridge should be used,
but I'ld add a twist: give each control the necessary properties
(duplicating those should be easy) and keep the common code
in as few classes as possible, instatiating them ONCE at the app
level and call the methods with a reference of the calling object.


In the control:
= goApp.oBehaveTextboxbf.ColorMethod(this, lnNewColour)
or
= this.oBridgePointer.ColorMethod(this, lnNewColour)

and in the behaviour object you can set

ColorMethod(this, lnNewColour)
lParameter toCtrl, tnCol
toCtrl.DisabledBackColour = m.tnCol

my 0,02 EUR

thomas
"Gene Wirchenko" <genew (AT) mail (DOT) ocis.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0futf0l7i2fdimm2fik8n3q2h60f00vqto (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

"Thomas Ganss" <TGanss_RemoveForRealAdress (AT) T-Online (DOT) de> wrote:

I do not understand what you mean here about wrapping *classes*
in a container.

They are bases of my class hierarchies.

[snipped previous]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

Gene,
Just put them in the container. The container container class is common,
branching out with the added controls into different subclasses.

HTH

thomas

"Thomas Ganss" <TGanss_RemoveForRealAdress (AT) T-Online (DOT) de> wrote:

It does not. It sounds as if you are confusing classes and
objects. Please be more specific.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.

not tested, but you should get the idea...

Define Class AtGetStr as Container
Function init()
if pemstat(this, oInputCtrl, 5)
= bindevent(oInputCtrl, "GotFocus", this, "GotFocusDelegate")
else
wait wind "Don't instantiate abstact classes"
return .f.
endif
EndFunc
Procedure GotFocusDelegate()
this.oInputCtrl.BackColor = RGB(0,255,0)
EndProc
EndDefine

Define class atgettext as AtGetStr
Add Object oInputCtrl as TextBoxF
EnDefine

Define class atgettext as AtGetEdit
Add Object oInputCtrl as EditBoxF
EnDefine



"Gene Wirchenko" <genew (AT) mail (DOT) ocis.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:gcm0g0pi3al09b9ei879cboqfgvcb18vgv (AT) 4ax (DOT) com...

grr, the 3rd should be

Define class AtGetEdit as AtGetStr
Add Object oInputCtrl as EditBoxF
EndDefine

of course...

thomas

"Thomas Ganss" <TGanss_RemoveForRealAdress (AT) T-Online (DOT) de> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:cdt7mo$9dd$01$1 (AT) news (DOT) t-online.com...