> On Apr 14, 2016, at 5:00 PM, Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org>
> wrote:
>
> You should not need TClassB here. You defeat the point of using an
> interface.
I’m using the interface for specific communication I want denoted in the
interface but I’m still typically using properties of the child class in
addition to the interface. Offloading all properties to the interface would
work but it would be making accessing them very cumbersome because it requires
using Support instead of just accessing them directly.
The interface was probably over complicating the example actually because the
true problem is having this pattern of a parent->child relationship where both
classes need to know about each other to some extent but putting them in the
same unit causes clutter and pollution in other units namespaces. In this
example it’s likely that many other units use TClassB and it’s not exclusive
to TClassA so putting them in the same unit doesn’t make sense.
Maybe I’m doing something stupid but other languages have forward declarations
so I wonder why Pascal isn’t doing this also since it seems like the obvious
solution.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
