Hi - why is `Foo` not available, but `Empty`? ```...

# getting-started

[Mario Adam]

Hi - why is Foo not available, but Empty?

interface IBaseViewState<out T> {
    object Foo : IBaseViewState<Nothing>
}

sealed interface IViewState<out T> : IBaseViewState<T> {
    object Loading : IViewState<Nothing>
    object Empty : IViewState<Nothing>
    data class Data<T>(val value: T) : IViewState<T>
    data class Error(val throwable: Throwable) : IViewState<Nothing>
}

[Ruckus]

It's not entirely clear what you're asking, but if you are saying you have a context where Empty is a valid value, but Foo isn't, I would guess it's because the context expects IViewState, which Empty is, but Foo isn't (it's only IBaseViewState)

[Mario Adam]

That’s what I meant… and I am wondering about that, as I thought `Foo`to be valid too because of inheritance

[kqr]

available where?

[kqr]

ah like this https://pl.kotl.in/6GaF5XnTW?

[Mario Adam]

Exactly like this, yes

[Muhammad Utbah]

In the given code snippet, Foo is declared as an object of the IBaseViewState interface, while Empty is declared as an object of the IViewState interface. Since IBaseViewState is a supertype of IViewState, Foo is not directly accessible from IViewState.
However, you can access Foo by explicitly referencing the IBaseViewState interface, like this:

val foo: IBaseViewState<Nothing> = IBaseViewState.Foo

On the other hand, Empty is directly accessible from IViewState since it's declared within it. So, you can access it like this:

val empty: IViewState<Nothing> = IViewState.Empty

Both Foo and Empty are declared as objects, which means that they are singleton instances of their respective classes/interfaces. So, you can use them directly without creating a new instance.

Might be it work

[kqr]

point is that class/object definitions are not inherited