On Monday 24 March 2003 00:31, you wrote: > > btw, all classes are implicit descendants of TObject. If you don't > > specify any base class, the class will be derived from TObject directly: > > > > type > > TMyClass = class > > procedure Something; > > ... > > end; > > > > TMyClass is automatically inherited from TObject > > > > Both postings sound like this wasn't clear... > > > > > > - Sebastian > > Indeed.. I did not know this. ^_^ Thank you very much.
Nor did I - Thank you. I'd like to ask several questions: 1. What is then the difference between a class without ancestor, and a class inheriting from TObject? 2. Will TObject remain the "default ancestor" in the future? 3. Efficiency: Sometimes I use classes without ancestor, with the assumption, that this might be more efficient in cases where TObject's methods and fields are not necessary. It seems that assumption was wrong. To save resources, should I use explicite pointers to objects when I don't need the features inherited by the class TObject? Thanx, Anton. ---------- "Adas Methode war, wie sich zeigen wird, Tagträume in offenbar korrekte Berechnungen einzuweben." Doris Langley Moore: Ada, Countess of Lovelace (London 1977). ---------- Anton Tichawa Volkertstrasse 19 / 20 A-1020 Wien mobil: +43 664 52 07 907 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---------- _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
