# Thinking backwards about "extends"

**URL:** <https://forum.kirupa.com/t/thinking-backwards-about-extends/248286>\
**Category:** flash\
**Created:** [January 6, 2008, 4:28pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/thinking-backwards-about-extends/248286 "2008-01-06T16:28:44Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Miguelele](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Miguelele](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/Miguelele)\
**Post date:** [January 6, 2008, 4:28pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/thinking-backwards-about-extends/248286/1 "2008-01-06T16:28:44Z")

</div>

Hi, this may sound stupid, but I have a question that I didn’t know that I had…:

A very simple example: a class **ChessHorse** that extends Sprite, so it inherits its interface. The class constructor creates a Sprite **myHorse** with a horse picture in it.

If I want the horse sprite to move, I use its Sprite’s properties, like \*\*myHorse.x=250 \*\*.

I can do that because **myHorse** IS a Sprite, but the instance of the class **ChessHorse** should inherit the Sprite posibilities, shouldn’t it?

So why I cant just write **ChessHorseInstance.x=250**?

I am sure that I have skipped something in the understanding of the class concept. Can someone enlighten me, please?

Regards!!