Re: [fpc-pascal] Question about interfaces

2005-03-18 Thread Micha Nelissen
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 00:44:24 +0100 ml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > These are C++ operators, aren't they? > > Yes (some of them are, but not all), but if you think about it basic > definition of operators is to make source code more easily readable. > > Couldn't you imagine to use > a := b % c

Re: [fpc-pascal] Question about interfaces

2005-03-18 Thread ml
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 03:55 +0200, Nikolay Nikolov wrote: > ml wrote: > > >3. This one is not some little beauty hack. So, no pressure here. But, I > >must admit that I'm most interested in this answer. Classes do support > >multiple interface inheritance, but interfaces don't. That cuts almost >

Re: [fpc-pascal] Question about interfaces

2005-03-18 Thread Nikolay Nikolov
ml wrote: 3. This one is not some little beauty hack. So, no pressure here. But, I must admit that I'm most interested in this answer. Classes do support multiple interface inheritance, but interfaces don't. That cuts almost all of the interface flexibility. Any good reasons why? Probably becaus

Re: [fpc-pascal] Question about interfaces

2005-03-18 Thread ml
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 01:40 +0200, Nikolay Nikolov wrote: > ml wrote: > > >btw. When writing about operators, why do they contain such little > >possibilities. operator overloads could contain possibility for > >['?','%','$','|','&','::','^'] > > > > > These are C++ operators, aren't they? Yes

Re: [fpc-pascal] Question about interfaces

2005-03-18 Thread Nikolay Nikolov
ml wrote: btw. When writing about operators, why do they contain such little possibilities. operator overloads could contain possibility for ['?','%','$','|','&','::','^'] These are C++ operators, aren't they? ___ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lis

[fpc-pascal] Question about interfaces

2005-03-18 Thread ml
Just a curiosity. 1. Why does one have t specify: type IMyInterface = interface function GetMyProp: integer; procedure SetMyProp(val: integer); property MyProp: integer read GetMyProp write SetMyProp; end; As soon as you specify property in interface that costs source 1 or 2 lines

Re: [fpc-pascal] bool / boolean converting

2005-03-18 Thread Peter J. Haas
Hi Peter, on 2005-03-18T17:31:53+01:00 you wrote: >> So far I could see it in the FPC sources, BOOL is declared as >> WINBOOL and this as longbool. In Windows general 0 mean False and >> any value <> 0 mean True. In the Windows API TRUE is declared as 1 >> (at 16, 32 and as well as 64 bit API). >>

Re: [fpc-pascal] bool / boolean converting

2005-03-18 Thread Peter Vreman
At 20:22 17-3-2005, you wrote: Hi, first, sorry my bad english. I have post this and the next two questions already in community (german language forum). So far I could see it in the FPC sources, BOOL is declared as WINBOOL and this as longbool. In Windows general 0 mean False and any value <> 0 me