On 11/18/2013 10:53 PM, Sieghard wrote: > Now, how can you pass an object that's meant to be kept unaffected by > anything happening in the procedure or function? Well, yes, you simply > can't. Of course you are right. Maybe inventing "constant objects" might be a nice extension to Object pascal. > and thus a really unneccessary extension of an already well defined concept. I understand this is to be able to remove the legacy "Objects" (predecessor of "Class") types, by in fact a new construct "between" record and class.
IMHO it would make more sense to add syntax to allow for static "class"s that are not "constructed" (on the heap) but just exist when a variable for them is defined (either in global ram or on the local stack). With that you would need neither record nor "Object" -Michael ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shape the Mobile Experience: Free Subscription Software experts and developers: Be at the forefront of tech innovation. Intel(R) Software Adrenaline delivers strategic insight and game-changing conversations that shape the rapidly evolving mobile landscape. Sign up now. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=63431311&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ mseide-msegui-talk mailing list mseide-msegui-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mseide-msegui-talk
