Sven Barth schrieb:
At least at first sight there don't seem to be any real (technical)
reasons to not covariance for return values. Parameters would be a
different topic though...
Just so I get the idea right:
=== code begin ===
type
TBar = class
function Test: TObject; virtual;
end;
TFooBar = class(TBar)
function Test: TStrings; override;
end;
//...
I just wonder about the purpose and use of such refinement. Should the
compiler relate on an more specific return type, based on the *static*
type of an object reference? I'd use different names for specialized
methods/properties instead.
OTOH it would be nice to have specialized lists without much coding,
i.e. without writing getters (and setters) which only do typecasts of
their results. Something like
type
TBar = class
property Test: TObject ...; virtual;
end;
TFooBar = class(TBar)
property Test: TStrings; override;
end;
Please note that this kind of override should not require to override
the getters/setters, it only would enforce (static) type checks/casts,
as doable at compile time.
But that smells like Generics, which already have their place in OPL...
Parameters would require different handling, because a single type
mismatch would defer to the base class implementation, with possibly
strange effects when this results in an bypass of the modified code in
the overridden methods. That's another argument for my above suggestion,
which should not only eliminate the need for overriding related methods,
but should *disallow* explicit getter/setter overrides - so we were back
again at generics?
DoDi
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
