type
TMyClass = class of TMyObject;
TMyObject = class
procedure InstanceMethod; //Self = TMyObject, can be virtual
class procedure ClassMethod; //Self = TMyClass, can be virtual
class procedure StaticClassMethod; static; //no Self, really just a global
procedure in a scoped na
Aah, right. Class methods I have used in past projects, but my
understanding is that, in these instances, Self can still be accessed, but
represents the class rather than the object, can be called without an
instantiated object, and still have the issues that they can be virtual and
overridden (s
These are known as “class” methods (rather than “static”) in object pascal.
Thanks,
Dmitry
On Saturday, July 28, 2018, J. Gareth Moreton
wrote:
> Aah, right.
>
> I'm probably being rather dumb here from not having used them before, but
> do you mean things like this?
>
> type
> TNewClass = cl
Aah, right.
I'm probably being rather dumb here from not having used them before, but
do you mean things like this?
type
TNewClass = class function Special: Boolean; static;
end;
I gather you can't access Self in such methods.
Gareth aka. Kit
On Sat 28/07/18 20:37 , "Sven Barth" pa
On Thu, 2018-07-26 at 22:19 +0200, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>
Well, I got also stuck on the fpmake problem :(
Yes, it appears to me that fpmkunit lack support for subarch & ABI at the
moment, else it would
have been easy to modify TPackage.GetUnitsOutputDir in a similar way.
__
J. Gareth Moreton schrieb am Sa., 28. Juli
2018, 19:34:
> I did wonder about that, but wasn't sure how it would affect things where
> inheritance is concerned. I dare ask, do you have an example of a class
> method that you would consider pure?
>
They don't have inheritance. If they have the mo
I did wonder about that, but wasn't sure how it would affect things where
inheritance is concerned. I dare ask, do you have an example of a class
method that you would consider pure?
And yes, object methods can't be pure because accessing the fields of the
current object (Self) is internally de
J. Gareth Moreton schrieb am Sa., 28. Juli
2018, 18:49:
> Another little progress update with implementing pure functions.
>
> 1. In my code (not submitted yet), the compiler now recognises and accepts
> the 'pure' directive. There are a number of other directives that it can't
> be used with ('
Another little progress update with implementing pure functions.
1. In my code (not submitted yet), the compiler now recognises and accepts
the 'pure' directive. There are a number of other directives that it
can't be used with ('noreturn' being one of them) and it can't be used on
object method
Given I want to be conservative with pure functions so it's
near-impossible to write something that breaks the compiler or cause
unexpected behaviour in the compiled binary, I'll treat the accessing of
such a constant as "impure" for reasons of safety. My work-in-progress
already detects accessin
In our previous episode, J. Gareth Moreton said:
> For a more fundamental question... why are typed and untyped constants
> treated differently?
Turbo Pascal allowed to write them, depending on a switch. $J.
Delphi adds {$writeableconst on} iirc.
But even when this is off, you can't be sure it
So I have a question about constants.
While programming pure functions, I noticed that typed and untyped
constants are treated differently. Something like "const Pi = 3.14159",
even if declared outside of the current function, is propagated directly in
expressions - the node construction shows
12 matches
Mail list logo
