On 17.07.2012 01:09, waldo kitty wrote: > now we need to remember to use "of object" when we are working with nothing > but > classes?
Imagine for a moment (in a parallel universe) there exists no keyword "object" and never has. All there has ever been was the keyword "class". now you have type TFoo = class end; var Foo : TFoo; Bar : TFoo; begin Foo := TFoo.Create; Bar := TFoo.Create; TFoo is a class Foo and Bar are objects They are objects in the original OOP sense of the word without having to worry about any other conflicting meaning of the word "object" and then it makes perfect sense. IMHO it was the old keyword "object" that was confusing and misplaced from the beginning on, it should have never existed. If there are two categories: "data" and "structure of data" then "object" belongs into "data" (the var section) and "class" belongs into "structure of data" (the type section). But "object" in the TurboPascal sense of the word is confusing, a badly chosen name for something else. Actually it is a type, it describes structure of data, type of data and not what one would intuitively expect the data itself, they shouldn't have called it "object". When mixing the OOP terminology and TurboPascal terminology you can end up having an object whose type is "object". This is the source of your confusion. It is best to completely ignore the existence of the old object keyword while pondering about OOP problems and when you need to use it then pretend to yourself that the keyword "object" does not mean what it says at all, that its just a badly chosen type name but it doesn't matter because you know what it really is. "procedure of object" on the other hand refers to the real (oop) meaning of "object" (instance of a class) and It would not hurt to also have its counterpart "procedure of class" to achieve the perfect symmetry as far as I'm concerned. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
