On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 19:52 +0200, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > On 19 May 2010 19:24, Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > > > that I actually need and why I implemented observer in the first place: to > > be able to observe for instance the changes in TMemo.Lines or > > TCombobox.Items. (and these are from real-world examples). > > And my prototype implementation of TActions support in fpGUI using > Observer is another example. I totally eliminated the TBasicActionLink > class hierarchy yet have the same functionality as LCL/VCL Actions > with less (and clearer) code.
This is what Marco is afraid about: that people want to alter the base-design, because 'their design is better'. That's certainly not what we should do. But adding the observer-possibility to the base classes is ok with me. It doesn't change the design, it adds something to it. something that I would implement the same way if I would re-design it. > > No-one objected then, I see no reason why this minor change is > > so questionable. > > I think Marco makes it his mission in life to disagree with everything > I say. :-( Trolling again? (It's not less a troll if there's a smiley behind it. Again an useless remark, only to grieve some others) Joost. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
