[fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion

Jamie McCracken jamie-junk at blueyonder.co.uk
Fri Jun 3 00:53:56 CEST 2005

> Yes. Too bad it is not possible. One of the problems you can expect is
> with cyclic units. Normally the interfaces of the units form a tree, which
> define how they get called. So the compiler can compile the interfaces in
> the depth first order, then it can do the implementations in any order it
> wants, cyclic uses in implementations are no longer a problem, as the
> compiler known how to call the procedures in those units.

yes I will need to think about that. Perhaps have two different use 

> From the good taste department, it breaks the interface/implementation
> principle. The unit principle guarantees that libraries are being written
> so that one only needs to look at the interface, not the implementation to
> know how a library works. It saves a few keystrokes, but makes it a lot
> harder for the user of the library to understand it.

Well thats how c# does it and whilst you have a point its not really a 
problem in the modern world were introspection or indexing is used by an 
IDE to get the interface.


> Daniƫl
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

More information about the fpc-devel mailing list