"Virtual properties behave like abstract methods" ?

[Gert Kok]

The microsoft page http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9fkccyh4.aspx

states:

Remarks (nr 4)

Virtual properties behave like abstract methods, except for the
differences in declaration and invocation syntax.
Why is it "abstract methods", not "virtual methods" ?

[Stoitcho Goutsev \(100\)]

Gert,

I believe it is a typo. It should to be read *virtual*.
--
HTH
Stoitcho Goutsev (100)

"Gert Kok" <ge*****@keraweb.nlwrote in message
news:12*************@corp.supernews.com...

The microsoft page http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9fkccyh4.aspx

states:

Remarks (nr 4)

Virtual properties behave like abstract methods, except for the
differences in declaration and invocation syntax.
Why is it "abstract methods", not "virtual methods" ?

[Tom Porterfield]

Gert Kok wrote:

The microsoft page http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9fkccyh4.aspx

states:

Remarks (nr 4)

Virtual properties behave like abstract methods, except for the
differences in declaration and invocation syntax.
Why is it "abstract methods", not "virtual methods" ?

I have to agree with Stoitcho that it is most likely a typo. Abstract
methods must be overridden in a derived class. Virtual properties do not
need to be overridden in derived classes. Abstract properties must be
overridden in derived classes.
--
Tom Porterfield

[Christof Nordiek]

I'm sure, it's only a typo.

The programmers reference often is much less exact than the specifications.

Here the quote from the specs:
Except for differences in declaration and invocation syntax, virtual,
sealed, override, and abstract accessors behave exactly like virtual,
sealed, override and abstract methods.
..
"Gert Kok" <ge*****@keraweb.nlschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:12*************@corp.supernews.com...

The microsoft page http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9fkccyh4.aspx

states:

Remarks (nr 4)

Virtual properties behave like abstract methods, except for the
differences in declaration and invocation syntax.
Why is it "abstract methods", not "virtual methods" ?

[Stoitcho Goutsev \(100\)]

Yes,

And it is pretty obvious from the context of the article - its is about
*virtual* keyword not *abstract*.They have different article for
*abstract* - http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9fkccyh4.aspx .
In that article one can find exactly the same sentence

"Abstract properties behave like abstract methods, except for the
differences in declaration and invocation syntax."

It looks like more like Copy/Paste error.
--
Stoitcho Goutsev (100)
"Tom Porterfield" <tp******@mvps.orgwrote in message
news:%2****************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Gert Kok wrote:

>The microsoft page http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9fkccyh4.aspx

states:

Remarks (nr 4)

Virtual properties behave like abstract methods, except for the
differences in declaration and invocation syntax.
Why is it "abstract methods", not "virtual methods" ?

I have to agree with Stoitcho that it is most likely a typo. Abstract
methods must be overridden in a derived class. Virtual properties do not
need to be overridden in derived classes. Abstract properties must be
overridden in derived classes.
--
Tom Porterfield