On 30 Oct 2013, at 15:00, Sven Barth wrote:
Am 30.10.2013 14:37, schrieb Jonas Maebe:
"Private" is just another way to define a scope, just like a unit
interface and implementation define a scope. Neither the "private"
section nor the interface of unit "u1" is in scope when the
"hidden" type is used.
Using an interface uses as the analog for private types is flawed in
my opinion. The analog code would more like this:
=== code begin ===
unit u2;
interface
function f: tdynarray;
implementation
type
tdynarray = array of integer;
function f: tdynarray;
begin
end;
end.
=== code end ===
Which of course does not compile.
This is not equivalent. A private type declaration in a class adds a
new identifier that is visible inside that class. You then use it,
still in that class, to declare the return type of a function. Next,
in a scope where that type identifier is no longer visible, you call
the function.
My example is a complete match to that scenario as far as identifier
visibility is concerned (you use a type in a scope where it is visible
to declare a function return type, and then call the function in a
scope where it is not visible). In your example, the type is not
visible in the place where the function is declared but only where it
is defined.
Jonas
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
