In our previous episode, Michael Schnell said: > > (I don't know how Delphi implements Corba interfaces, it had a own > > broker for some time) > Sorry, but I feel we are loosing tack of the original focus of this > thread: "what is a save replacement of multiple inheritance of classes ? " > > - Obviously interfaces do this job. > > - Seemingly this is independent of interfaces doing ref-counting. > > - Maybe other than with classes, ref-counting interfaces is rather safe.
Or maybe the rules are simpler, that is a matter of opinion/interpretation > In other words: *language* disregarding external stuff interfaces might > *additionally* be useful to handle. Basic MI like C++ does afaik imply that both sides (that you inherit from) are a class. Now the C++ concept of the root class is rather thin, but that doesn't go for all languages. IOW in Delphi speak: interfaces don't have to be implemented by a TObject. > And hence the questions for me are > - how are ref-counting and not ref counting interfaces distinguished > when the programmer wants to use either type ? (and does this syntax > make sense) > - where/how is this clearly (disregarding external stuff interfaces > might *additionally* be useful to handle) documented ? I don't know. I guess Michael and Graeme are the main corba interface consumers with the observer stuff. Maybe Martin S. uses it too. I searched a bit in the FPC codebase, and the observers and lnet (in utils/fppkg/lnet) seem the only places where it is used. The demo (fcl-base/examples/dobserver.pp) for observers uses interfaces in the exact way as you would refcounted interfaces, except of course you need to keep a reference to the class to release memory. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
