On 2017-09-06 09:03, Ryan Joseph wrote:
For the sake of discussion can you see why it makes sense that “hook.” syntax would be implied because the class does indeed supposedly implement the interface? Everything about the syntax says that the methods in IHook should be in TBaseClass so I can’t help but feel like it was an omission or not fully finished.
"implements" in that example says that the implementation of the IHook interface is delegated to another class - THook. If you didn't define the property... implements in TBaseClass, then TBaseClass would have had to explicitly implement all methods of IHook. The implements means you can reuse the IHook implementation (thanks to THook) in many other classes too.
Granted I personally don't like the syntax for "implements", but that's what Borland came up with for Delphi, and FPC follows that syntax for compatibility reasons.
The other annoying thing of Object Pascal's Interface support is that you need to specify which interfaces you implement, even in descendant classes where the parent already implements a specific interface. But that's a whole other discussion. ;-)
Regards, Graeme -- fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal http://fpgui.sourceforge.net/ My public PGP key: http://tinyurl.com/graeme-pgp _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
