Re: Full view of a private partial view cannot be a subtype

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Jere" <jhb.chat@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:c29c753e-18e9-475b-9a28-a19aa697ea2f@googlegroups.com...
...
> Using
> either extension, derivations, or composition all seemed very heavy handed
> for just wanting to mimic the same specification as another generic.

Fair enough, but it seems like a bizarre thing to do. If I start getting a 
generic design that is too complex to use easily, I'm likely to toss the 
entire thing in the junk and do something else. (And exposing access types 
is almost always a bad idea, because you force the client to do memory 
management, eliminating the possibilities that they have of using containers 
or stack allocation to avoid it altogether.)

Also note that you'll end up with visibility problems if both packages end 
up used in a program (which seems likely), as the operations in each will 
conflict.

                  Randy.