Ravichandran J.V. said:
"Good."
I am glad that you approve but please be as agreeable as I am.
I'll leave it to anyone else reading this thread to decide how
agreeable you are - especially bearing in mind the quotes from the 2002
thread I've included below.
"You don't overload a signature - "
I don't have access to my computer otherwise I would have copied/pasted
the exact error that a compiler generates - No matching signature found
or something similar is the error when you try to early bind a call to a
non-existent method and similarly, "a method with the same
name/signature already exists...". I will post back on the exact error
that appears.
Yes - but that's not saying that you overload a signature. You can't
overload a method when the same signature already exists, and you can't
call a method if there isn't one with a matching signature. Neither of
those indicate that "overloading a signature" is valid terminology.
"I don't see why I shouldn't voice my disagreement."
You can but please refrain from attributing opinions that are never
voiced by me, which is what you do and which is what and why I objected
to in our previous interaction as well but you simply would not stop.
That's about the third time you've said that in this thread, but you
never provide any examples. Please do so, or stop making the
allegation.
"Ah, great. Does that mean you retract your various insults on the
thread ages ago where you accused me all manner of stupidities.."
I never insulted you as I said I only objected to your attributing all
kinds of things which you claimed were posted by me. But if you insist,
I do not mind retracting any statements I made against you.
Never insulted me? Good grief! Here are some choice quotes from that
thread:
<quote>
You have very little idea of
what OOPS is, Jon, and I am quite sure you keep thinking that everybody
must be like you - half-knowledged and who pass their own wrong claims
onto others - and jump around making a noise.
</quote>
<quote>
Why don't you get the knowledge part straight and then argue on your
doubts ?
</quote>
<quote>
And kindly refrain from commenting on my OOPS knowledge, as I have
already proved you wrong twice on both - 1. your understanding of
English 2. on your knowledge of OOPS - and I don't want nor do I like
to be called wrong by absolutely ill-equipped of programmers.
</quote>
<quote>
As I said, you are so ill-equipped in knowledge, I don't see how your
agreement to my statements should make any difference as you are so
wrong you better correct yourself before staking any claim to be my
equal.
</quote>
<quote>
You are being childish
</quote>
Bear in mind with all these claims of how "ill-equipped in knowledge" I
supposedly was that you were repeating, time and time again, that
constructors *are* inherited. You were also making the claim that you
say must have been a typo in the Devdex article, namely (to quote
another post):
<quote>
A base class may have more than just a default constructor and to be
able to make us of the base class' other (overloaded) constructors, you
need to implement the base class' default constructor first.
</quote>
As for attributing things to you - again, please give examples. I'm
very careful with how I quote people. Of course, I may have
misunderstood you a few times, given the way you were misusing
terminology.
"It is a means to achieve inheritance because without
implementing the base' default construcotrs, the derived class cannot
inherit the overloaded constructors of the base." (What you meant by
that exactly is hard to say, given that constructors aren't inherited
anyway.)
It was written way back in 2001 but the argument arose because I knew
constructors were not inherited so how did that statement come into the
article is something I cannot explain.
If you knew constructors weren't inherited, why did you make statements
directly to the contrary in October 2002? Here are a few examples:
<quote>
You cannot leave it away if you want to because if you do, you will not
be able to inherit the other constructors of the base.
</quote>
<quote>
Kindly explain, if you know how to, HOW DID THE MESSAGE "Hello World !"
GET DISPLAYED IN THE CONSOLE OF YOUR PC IF, AS YOU CLAIM, "CLASSES
DON'T INHERIT CONSTRUCTORS." ?????
</quote>
<quote>
OOOOH, "may or may not agree with me"? When you do not even know the
basic of OOPS on derived classes inheriting base class' constructors or
not ! OOOF !
</quote>
(That was you disagreeing with my statement that constructors aren't
inherited.)
<quote>
The destructor is the only object of a base class that is not
inherited.
</quote>
<quote>
Similarly, in the case of the constructors, as in my posted class, in
the earlier posts, the base' default constructor is inherited which is
how the derived class can access it
</quote>
<quote>
So, (after having proved it I can say SO), the derived class does
inherit constructors and I am not, NOT, contradicting nor questioning
the lang. specs.
</quote>
<quote>
I hope we have agreed on the point that a
constructor is only called explicitly with ":Base()" and since there is
no such statement it means that the derived class' instance inherited
the base class' constructor.
</quote>
(Note the double mistake in that sentence - a parameterless base classs
constructor is called implicitly if there is no ": base(...)" part.)
These articles were part of a
book (Let me say humbly that I, too, can write a book (even if you think
that it must be full of mistakes!) and is titled C+C++=C# ! What I am
trying to understand is how that statement got into the article! But,
since it was a mistake on my part I will accept that what you have
quoted above is correct and I can only explain that it was a typo error
because I cannot think of any other reason to explain it.
If it's a typo error, why did you make the same mistake several times
in different places, and provide code to try to back up the spurious
claim?
It's also still in your list of articles:
http://www.developersdex.com/gurus/default.asp?p=3133
I will remove it from the list.
"To answer your previous challenge though:"
This is what I meant when I said, "There you go again!" in this same
thread and what I mean when I say "Please do not attribute
qualities/opinions that are not mine."
In what way is that an "opinion" or "quality"?
I simply posted a question to you and you bloat it to a challenge.
Actually, you didn't post a question. You made a request. I reckon the
word challenge isn't misconstruing anything here.
Now, any reason you haven't responded to the fact that I fulfilled your
request without any error messages occurring?
"It's relevant to constructor chaining when writing ..."
writing what???
A class deriving from System.Object, as my post said. Does the Devdex
interface you use not allow you to see the full post? I strongly
suggest you start using a proper newsreader if that's the case. (In
fact, I suggest that anyway - it would be easier to reply to your posts
if you quoted in the normal Usenet way.)