On 02/27/2014 04:35 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
You have to declare an instance and then call its property. You don't
have to instantiate the instance if the property maps to a class method.
Technically there's some obstacle to allow such construct?
Class properties should be accessible from within static class
methods. Having them accessible depending on the getter/setter they
use (static or not) would break orthogonality (the
visibility/usability must depend on the interface, not on the
implementation of the interface).
I just came across the same issue and as well got the error "Only class
methods, class properties and class variables can be referred with class
references".
Hence I cant do "TmyClass.myProperty:=xyz;"
but I _can_ do "TmyClass.SetmyProperty(xyz);"
I in fact directly calling the "class" function that is denoted in the
definition of the property.
Hence: I am allowed to use a class variable instead of a property, and I
am allowed to call the setter class function, but I am not allowed to
use the syntax candy provided by the property keyword.
In fact I don't see why this should make sense.
The error message suggest that it should be possible to define a "class
property" similar to a class function. But this syntax seems to be
illegal (says the appropriate error message).
-Michael
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
