pascaldragon at googlemail.com
Wed Sep 6 11:32:55 CEST 2017
Am 06.09.2017 10:34 schrieb "Ryan Joseph" <ryan at thealchemistguild.com>:
> > On Sep 6, 2017, at 2:50 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys <
mailinglists at geldenhuys.co.uk> wrote:
> > There is NO need to make Hook public, because you can always get access
to that functionality via the Supports() call and get a reference to IHook.
> The Supports() call is the key takeaway here.
> For the sake of discussion can you see why it makes sense that “hook.”
syntax would be implied because the class does indeed supposedly implement
the interface? Everything about the syntax says that the methods in IHook
should be in TBaseClass so I can’t help but feel like it was an omission or
not fully finished. It would be messy to implement probably because you
would risk a number of name collisions with existing methods.
No it's definitely by design. If you use alias clauses ("procedure
IMyIntf.Foobar = Blubb") then you also won't have the interface's method in
your class, but only the alias. The method can only be accesssed by the
interface's method name by using an interface instance not the class
instance. The "implements" clause is just an advanced variant of that in
that it allows you to use a complete class (though you're still able to
implement selected methods of the interface in the base class which aren't
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the fpc-pascal