On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> Marco van de Voort wrote: > >> Changing type to something which is not a descendant (and thus > >> incompatible) seems useless and always dangerous to me, so should be > >> forbidden if possible. > > > > I also considered it that way. But maybe the "absolute" keyword is then a > > bit badly chosen, since it implies memory overlaying, no questions asked. > > Yes, agree, but the way of use is so similar. Maybe the other usages > should get this checking as well ;-). > > Maybe 'override' instead, but that one is so closely tied to functions, > and implies something 'virtual' as well. If you do it for fields of class type only, then I think this is OK. Declare the field as virtual, and require it to be 'overridden' in the descendent class. Michael. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
