On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 14:35:59 -0400
Tony Maro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:10:31 +0200
> >Matthijs Willemstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hi all,
> >>
> >>When I have the following code:
> >>
> >>type
> >> TFoo = class
> >> procedure FooProc;
> >> end;
> >>
> >>After invoking code completion the skeleton of procedure TFoo.FooProc is
> >>created. Then I change the definition to read as follows:
> >>
> >>type
> >> TFoo = class
> >> procedure FooProc(AValue: TWhatever);
> >> end;
> >>
> >>Pressing <ctrl><shift>C (thus invoking code completion) a new skeleton
> >>for procedure TFoo.FooProc is made. I think this is not the correct
> >>behaviour. Either it should do nothing at all, or it should adapt the
> >>previously created version.
> >>Any opinions on that?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I would prefer automatic adapting too.
> >But some Delphians would expect something different:
> >
> >
> Wouldn't automatic adapting make overloading harder?
Why?
> The result as
> happens now is it basically gets created like it's overloaded...
Yes.
But in the case, that the class declaration and the methods bodies contains
exactly one method that does not fit, then it's pretty obvious, that these
correspond.
Mattias
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
