On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 02:39, Mattias Gaertner <nc-gaert...@netcologne.de> wrote: > On Sat, 2 May 2009 02:17:48 +1100 > Alexander Klenin <kle...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Because this surprises developers and leads to bugs. >> See the issue http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=13418 >> (linked from the discussed one) for a recent example. > > As Jonas already noted: > 'That entirely depends on what you expect. "inherited property" now > means "use the property as declared in the parent class", which in a sense is > logical.'
Yes, I see. It is just in this particular case logic and intuition are in conflict. > You can create a bug report for the documentation that only mentions > methods and maybe this is the reason for the confusion. > > For example: [skipped example] Although this is classic example of convoluted and bad code, it did convince me. Including _both_ this and my examples in documentation is a good idea. Is there a Mercurial mirror of FPC docs? >> Alternative solution would be to issue a warning if >> TInherited.SetP contains "inherited P := V" and SetP is virtual. > > -1 Why? Your example does not cover this. -- Alexander S. Klenin _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
