You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This restriction (and the bugs it used to cause) was because the editor expected the class to be instantiatable. Which is understandable. However I wondered if this rule could be relaxed if the class was abstract, alternatively, if a generic class has the [GlobalClass] annotation, treat it like a base class in the hierarchy and use the basic name of the class.
Either way, it wouldn't need to be considered instantiatable. This would allow us to derive from a generic class with a concrete class and still use the annotation. Is this possible?
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
https://docs.godotengine.org/en/stable/tutorials/scripting/c_sharp/diagnostics/GD0402.html
This restriction (and the bugs it used to cause) was because the editor expected the class to be instantiatable. Which is understandable. However I wondered if this rule could be relaxed if the class was abstract, alternatively, if a generic class has the [GlobalClass] annotation, treat it like a base class in the hierarchy and use the basic name of the class.
Either way, it wouldn't need to be considered instantiatable. This would allow us to derive from a generic class with a concrete class and still use the annotation. Is this possible?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions