On 14 November 2010 15:36, Sven Barth <pascaldra...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Ask Borland why they decided to do it that way... perhaps they wanted a > common ancestor for they case they ever decide to use non COM interfaces... > (I can only guess here)
This is exactly what I am saying IInterface is a non-COM interface in Kylix (so that would seem logical why they introduced IInterface, and not keep using IUnkown because the latter would make no sense under Linux), and will mostly like be the case again when Embarcadero brings out their x-platform Delphi. So with FPC already supporting COM and non-COM interfaces, it would seem logical that when CORBA interfaces are used, IInterface acts the same as Kylix, by being a non-COM interface. I also hate open ended type definitions. eg: TMyClass = class end; That defaults to a TObject descendant. Then in Delphi a interface definition of IMyInterface = interface end; will actually descend from IInterface/IUnknown. But that same interface definition descends from what, when CORBA style interfaces are used in FPC? Just nothing? This doesn't seem logical, hence I think it should also descend from IInterface like Kylix, but then be non-COM. -- Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit http://opensoft.homeip.net:8080/fpgui/ _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
