On Sunday 30 December 2007 15:31:32 Micha Nelissen wrote: > bartek wrote: > > I am not quite sure whether my synatx is correct. IMHO explictly defining the > > type feels more pascalish. Having more time at hand i have written a much > > shorter example code which shows in what way such a type should be defined. > > I think that it is the same type in a different namespace. Like using > "unit.type" syntax. > > Micha > _______________________________________________ > fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org > http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal >
Yes you are right, I did not think of that. I think a seperate bugreport is appropriate, since this bug is not even really related to the previous bug. The last one made the 2.2.0 compiler crash, this one is a missing feature in the svn trunk. Reported as #0010512 with unit.type/(generic)class.type as expected behaviour. bartek _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
