On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Peter Vreman wrote:
> > If there compelling reason why type definitions cannot be included in > > class/object definitions? > > Make it mode FPC to keep folks happy :) > > > > Quite often a type is defined in INTERFACE part, but only used within > > class/object defined in same unit. > > 1) This means that type is public. This is not always good thing in > > OOese. > > 2) Unit must be specified in child's child's USE list. > > It breaks code and is therefor incompatible. A type symbol is never > searched in an object, class or record symtable. At the most we could introduce a 'Private' type section in the unit interface section. But even that is not needed, as you can perfectly solve the problems without it, just use a class factory and inheritance. Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [email protected] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
