"Peter Popov" <ppopo...@gmail.com>: > PI exists, it has a unique transcedental value, so it should clearly be > global. Semanticaly, MyClass1.PI and MyClass2.PI are different > identifiers, which given the nature of PI is a ridiculous concept.
The unique transcendental value of PI can not be expressed within a finite computing machine. So in fact, there may be more than one approximation, i.e. one for single-precision, one for double-precision. > That is my point: most constants are global in nature. It would be > interested to see a class constant which is usefull where a global > constant (within a unit) is not. If the constant is used within the class and in descendants only, it might. I'm a strong believer of reduced visibility. Of course, as you state, the visibility provided by the unit might be enough. But it also means, that a derived class may need to include that unit whereas in case of a class constant, it wouldn't need to. Not that this is a particularly strong argument. ;) Vinzent. -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
