Marco van de Voort wrote:
Do you mean you agree with the design flaw in the original object pascal specification from Borland? Plz explain... IIRC even Anders admitted that simply separating interface from implementation was based on only partial knowledge of the OO paradime and has corrected that oversight in C#. IMHO "strict" is a good thing and by design, albeit not implemented soon enough in history. Unlimited visibility in the implementation section makes for unreliable programming and therefore should be considered a bug if not a potential lethal and stealthy source for those insects.IMHO strict private has nothing to do with strictness, except for the first word. It has to do with micromanaging visibility, something I do not agree with, not in the least because the exact use is highly a matter of taste.I would prefer to keep it far from FPC codebases.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
