> Peter,
>
> Thanks for clearing things a little further!
>
> I see that many responses refer to Delphi compatibility. I understand
> that the FP compiler has a switch that tells it to compile the pascal
> code as Delphi code. In that sense, I'd expect FP to provide a superset
> of the Object Pascal dialect. And that is true indeed!
>
> FP offers operator overloading, which is not an Object Pascal feature.
> I'm not yet familiar with the compiler but I guess many other features
> are also particular to FP.
>
> Many of us (Delphi/Kylix developers) find many features missing in the
> Object Pascal compiler and we see FP is a real chance to get those
> features working. RTTI, for instance. Why shouldn't all objects have
> RTTI? Why should only TPersistent descendants have it? Class attributes
RTTI is enabled by a switch {$M+} and it is also inherited by descendant
classes.
> is another missing part of the (language feature) puzzle. Why is it not
> supported by Object Pascal and FP? It really doesn't make sense to me.
> Unless, of course, this is so complex to implement...
>
> I have hacked a way to get class attributes working- it does the job,
> but we should have a language construct to support this kind of thing.
> You can check this article to see how class attributes can be
> "implemented" the Delphi way:
>
That is already supported by an fpc extension allowing static members.
Just add the static directive after the field.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
