Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I will add a comment as you suggest. The documentation is meant to
enlighten the user, not confuse him :-)
:-) Thanks Michael.
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI toolkit using Free Pascal
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/
_
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Sergei Gorelkin wrote:
"There are no visibility specifiers. All members are public (indeed, it
would make little sense to make them private or protected)."
This is about visibility of the methods/properties of
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
Below is part of the Interfaces documentation. I disagree with the
documentation mentioned below.
Interfaces - section 7.1
http://lazarus-ccr.sourceforge.net/fpcdoc/ref/refse34.html#x77-850007.1
"There are
Sergei Gorelkin wrote:
"There are no visibility specifiers. All members are public (indeed, it
would make little sense to make them private or protected)."
This is about visibility of the methods/properties of the interface itself.
Do not confuse it with visi
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
Below is part of the Interfaces documentation. I disagree with the
documentation mentioned below.
Interfaces - section 7.1
http://lazarus-ccr.sourceforge.net/fpcdoc/ref/refse34.html#x77-850007.1
"There are no visibility specifiers
Hi,
Below is part of the Interfaces documentation. I disagree with the
documentation mentioned below.
Interfaces - section 7.1
http://lazarus-ccr.sourceforge.net/fpcdoc/ref/refse34.html#x77-850007.1
"There are no visibility specifiers. All members are public (
Hello,
I've just fixed http://bugs.freepascal.org/view.php?id=11862 which
caused wrong methods of implemented interfaces to be called in some
situations. However, while fixing it I first broke tests/webtbs/
tw3489.pp and after fixing that one tests/tbs/tb0485.pp didn't work
anymore.
Ever
Peter Vreman wrote:
It is legacy.
You can improve it to put the wrappers for one interface definition in its own
section.
Looks like a one-line fix (see the attached patch).
By the way, while testing it in Windows, I could not make the compiler
do the smartlink with external linker. I compi
> Hello,
>
> I noticed that, within a unit, all interface wrappers (groups of
> 'WRPR_*' symbols) are placed into one "assembler unit" together with
> unit initialization/finalization code (sorry, do not know the exact term
> for "assember unit").
> As a consequence, init/final code pulls in *all*
Hello,
I noticed that, within a unit, all interface wrappers (groups of
'WRPR_*' symbols) are placed into one "assembler unit" together with
unit initialization/finalization code (sorry, do not know the exact term
for "assember unit").
As a consequence, init/final code pulls in *all* interface
I suppose we are discussing the Delphi language keyword "interface" and
it's implementation in free pascal.
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
>> One advantage is that it can be easely used on many languages,
>> althougth the usefulness of that for ideintf is probably very small.
>>
>I suppose you mean programming languages not spoken languages.
>But Interface is a Delphi language keyword. I don't see what this has
to with C or whate
One advantage is that it can be easely used on many languages,
althougth the usefulness of that for ideintf is probably very small.
I suppose you mean programming languages not spoken languages.
But Interface is a Delphi language keyword. I don't see what this has to
with C or whatever.
On Nov 30, 2007 10:12 AM, Michael Schnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the advantage of interfaces anyway (seems that I have been
> missing something ... )
One advantage is that it can be easely used on many languages,
althougth the usefulness of that for ideintf is probably very small.
-
Martin Schreiber schrieb:
> On Friday 30 November 2007 11.23, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
>>> Delphi 7 is 10 times faster than FPC 2.2.
>>> 8 seconds instead of 1min20 is better, don't you think?
>> I'll bite. :-)
>> What can I compile to do a speed comparison? How do I compile MSEgui
>> under De
> On 30 Nov 2007, at 15:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> > Well, those are not numbers I'm interested in anyway. Sparc doesn't
> > feature
> > binwriter
>
> Why would the presence/absence of an integrated assembler make a
> difference?
Performance is not just CPU, but also disk and startup
On 30 Nov 2007, at 15:27, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Well, those are not numbers I'm interested in anyway. Sparc doesn't
feature
binwriter
Why would the presence/absence of an integrated assembler make a
difference? At least make -j doesn't do any assembling in parallel
with the rest whe
> Micha Nelissen schrieb:
> > Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> >> OTOH2, using no build unit but compiling with make -j is faster on multi
> >> core systems.
> >
>
> if (Micha==0)
> multi_threaded_fpc=0;
> else
> multi_threaded_fpc++;
Cough!
___
fp
> Marco van de Voort schrieb:
> >> Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
> >> OTOH, this might be solved indeed in the future by splitting the rtl.
> >> OTOH2, using no build unit but compiling with make -j is faster on multi
> >> core systems.
> >
> > Is it? Do you have numbers?
>
> I tested once on Paul Da
Micha Nelissen schrieb:
> Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>> OTOH2, using no build unit but compiling with make -j is faster on multi
>> core systems.
>
if (Micha==0)
multi_threaded_fpc=0;
else
multi_threaded_fpc++;
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
>> Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
>> OTOH, this might be solved indeed in the future by splitting the rtl.
>> OTOH2, using no build unit but compiling with make -j is faster on multi
>> core systems.
>
> Is it? Do you have numbers?
I tested once on Paul Davidson's quad core
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:22:54 +0100 (CET)
> Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Paul Ishenin wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > > > No-one. The DLL must be recompiled anyway if you use pa
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:22:54 +0100 (CET)
Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Paul Ishenin wrote:
>
> > Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > > No-one. The DLL must be recompiled anyway if you use packages.
> > > And this is also true if you use interfaces, so usin
> Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
> OTOH, this might be solved indeed in the future by splitting the rtl.
> OTOH2, using no build unit but compiling with make -j is faster on multi
> core systems.
Is it? Do you have numbers?
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-deve
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Paul Ishenin wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > No-one. The DLL must be recompiled anyway if you use packages.
> > And this is also true if you use interfaces, so using interfaces
> > will not solve the problem you mention.
> >
> Only if compiler (who provides packag
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
OTOH2, using no build unit but compiling with make -j is faster on multi
core systems.
multi_threaded_fpc++ :-)
Micha
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-d
Florian Klaempfl schrieb:
> Micha Nelissen schrieb:
>> Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>>> Micha Nelissen schrieb:
Well, the best optimization is not needing to do something at all ;-).
>>> So you see a way to do make cycle in one compiler call ;)?
>> Obviously not the three cycles, but maybe one cycl
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Well, problem is that then not all units are build and you don't want to
pull in variants etc. into the compiler :)
rtl_extra++ :-)
Micha
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/ma
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
No-one. The DLL must be recompiled anyway if you use packages.
And this is also true if you use interfaces, so using interfaces
will not solve the problem you mention.
Only if compiler (who provides package system) changed. Ide changes will
not cause recompilation o
Micha Nelissen schrieb:
> Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>> Micha Nelissen schrieb:
>>> Well, the best optimization is not needing to do something at all ;-).
>>
>> So you see a way to do make cycle in one compiler call ;)?
>
> Obviously not the three cycles, but maybe one cycle could be done by not
> co
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Micha Nelissen schrieb:
Well, the best optimization is not needing to do something at all ;-).
So you see a way to do make cycle in one compiler call ;)?
Obviously not the three cycles, but maybe one cycle could be done by not
compiling the RTL, but by starting to co
Micha Nelissen schrieb:
> Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>>> 8 seconds instead of 1min20 is better, don't you think?
>>
>> Oh great, please tell me how you accelerated make and process start
>> times.
>
> Well, the best optimization is not needing to do something at all ;-).
>
So you see a way to do ma
On Friday 30 November 2007 11.23, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> > Delphi 7 is 10 times faster than FPC 2.2.
> > 8 seconds instead of 1min20 is better, don't you think?
>
> I'll bite. :-)
> What can I compile to do a speed comparison? How do I compile MSEgui
> under Delphi 7?
>
http://www.mail-archi
I even do have that book right behind me on the shelf.
Silly me should have looked there :(.
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> On Friday 30 November 2007 11.22, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> > > I forgot to mention that the Delphi 'implements' keyword
> >
> > FPC supports this? Thought some bugs are known iirc.
> >
> Is the following from Delphi 7 help possible with FPC?
int
Marc Weustink schreef:
Vincent Snijders wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt schreef:
I find classes more natural than interfaces. It 'just works'. Not so
with interfaces, because you must do a typecast every time.
Compare
Function GetPluginInterface : ISOmeThing;
begin
X:=MyPluginObjectXYZ.Creat
On Friday 30 November 2007 11.22, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> > I forgot to mention that the Delphi 'implements' keyword
>
> FPC supports this? Thought some bugs are known iirc.
>
Is the following from Delphi 7 help possible with FPC?
"
If the delegate property is of a class type, that class and its
OK, Thanks,
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Vincent Snijders wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt schreef:
I find classes more natural than interfaces. It 'just works'. Not so
with interfaces, because you must do a typecast every time.
Compare
Function GetPluginInterface : ISOmeThing;
begin
X:=MyPluginObjectXYZ.Create;
Result:=X as ISomet
Michael Van Canneyt schreef:
I find classes more natural than interfaces. It 'just works'.
Not so with interfaces, because you must do a typecast every time.
Compare
Function GetPluginInterface : ISOmeThing;
begin
X:=MyPluginObjectXYZ.Create;
Result:=X as ISomething;
end;
This is then
On 30/11/2007, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This works iirc too?
That's what I remember as well
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
fpGUI - a cross-platform Free Pascal GUI toolkit
http://opensoft.homeip.net/fpgui/
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
> On 30/11/2007, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> and the interface
>>> method resolution clauses would be useful too.
>> What this?
>>
>
>
> I think he means when a class implements a inferfaces and somewhere in
> the class hierarchy, there already exist
On 30/11/2007, Florian Klaempfl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > and the interface
> > method resolution clauses would be useful too.
>
> What this?
>
I think he means when a class implements a inferfaces and somewhere in
the class hierarchy, there already exists a method with the same name.
You
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Paul Ishenin wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> > > > Classes:
> > > > - No reference counting mess. - Easier to grasp conceptually.
> > > >
> > > In plugin dll?
> >
> > Sure. Why not ? Obviously, the DLL needs to use packages, but that is
> > understood.
>
> I me
Florian Klaempfl wrote:
8 seconds instead of 1min20 is better, don't you think?
Oh great, please tell me how you accelerated make and process start times.
Well, the best optimization is not needing to do something at all ;-).
Micha
___
fpc-devel ma
On 30 Nov 2007, at 11:49, Martin Schreiber wrote:
Delphi 7 is 10 times faster than FPC 2.2.
8 seconds instead of 1min20 is better, don't you think?
That very much depends on the trade-offs. If there are none: fine.
However, if it requires to go back to a compiler design similar to
that of
On 30/11/2007, Martin Schreiber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> I forgot to mention that the Delphi 'implements' keyword and the interface
> method resolution clauses would be useful too.
>
Aren't those already supported in FPC 2.2.0? I thought 'implements'
was around some some time now.
>
> D
Martin Schreiber schrieb:
> On Friday 30 November 2007 09.59, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>> Martin Schreiber schrieb:
> http://www.freepascal.org/mantis/view.php?id=6036
It doesn't look like that is going to be fixed any time soon. It was
reported in 2005-06-14 and still hasn't even been
On 30/11/2007, Michael Schnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> What is the advantage of interfaces anyway (seems that I have been
> missing something ... )
>
Many others have answered this already, so I'm not going to type out
the answer. Instead, I'll just quote some of them This should
gi
On Friday 30 November 2007 09.59, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> Martin Schreiber schrieb:
> >>> http://www.freepascal.org/mantis/view.php?id=6036
> >>
> >> It doesn't look like that is going to be fixed any time soon. It was
> >> reported in 2005-06-14 and still hasn't even been acknowledged!
>
> I've
Since I assume the DLL use is the scenario that is wanted,
it de facto means that you must use widestrings.
What about old fashioned PChar ? Everybody using the Windows and Linux
APIs is used to that.
-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-deve
Op Fri, 30 Nov 2007, schreef Martin Schreiber:
> On Friday 30 November 2007 10.26, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> >
> > When you pass an interface that uses ansistrings to a DLL,
> > the ansistrings in it (or referenced by it) may be disposed
> > of by the wrong memory manager.
> >
> > Since I ass
On Friday 30 November 2007 10.26, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> When you pass an interface that uses ansistrings to a DLL,
> the ansistrings in it (or referenced by it) may be disposed
> of by the wrong memory manager.
>
> Since I assume the DLL use is the scenario that is wanted,
> it de facto me
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Classes:
- No reference counting mess. - Easier to grasp conceptually.
In plugin dll?
Sure. Why not ?
Obviously, the DLL needs to use packages, but that is understood.
I mean what is easier to grasp conceptually when you use class in dll
instead of interface?
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Paul Ishenin wrote:
>
>
> Michael Van Canneyt пишет:
> > On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Lazarus has the IDEIntf, the API for IDE plugins.
> > >
> > > What is better in this case: classes or interfaces?
> > >
> >
> > Classes:
> > - No ref
> > What is better in this case: classes or interfaces?
> >
> What is the advantage of interfaces anyway (seems that I have been
> missing something ... )
A limited form of multiple inheritance.
> I _thought_ it would be reference counting, but in the other thread
> someone wants to (and do
What is better in this case: classes or interfaces?
What is the advantage of interfaces anyway (seems that I have been
missing something ... )
I _thought_ it would be reference counting, but in the other thread
someone wants to (and does) use Interfaces without reference counting.
-Mich
Martin Schreiber schrieb:
>>> http://www.freepascal.org/mantis/view.php?id=6036
>> It doesn't look like that is going to be fixed any time soon. It was
>> reported in 2005-06-14 and still hasn't even been acknowledged!
I've no clue how it is supposed to work :)
>>
> :-)
> Reference counted widest
On Friday 30 November 2007 08.21, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On 30/11/2007, Martin Schreiber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > tnullinterfacedobject is needed in MSEgui for Delphi compatibility
> > because Delphi has no corba style interfaces.
>
> So basically you want to use interfaces without refere
On 30/11/2007, Martin Schreiber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> tnullinterfacedobject is needed in MSEgui for Delphi compatibility because
> Delphi has no corba style interfaces.
So basically you want to use interfaces without reference counting.
What other benefits did you see to make you decide
Michael Van Canneyt пишет:
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Lazarus has the IDEIntf, the API for IDE plugins.
What is better in this case: classes or interfaces?
Classes:
- No reference counting mess.
- Easier to grasp conceptually.
In plugin dll?
- You can use an
On Thursday 29 November 2007 11.52, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>
> > > Also, do I have to specify {$Interfaces Corba} in every unit I have,
> > > or is it only needed in the using that defines the interface itself?
> > You need. See eg MSE units.
>
The {$interfaces corba} in every MSEgui unit is bec
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> Lazarus has the IDEIntf, the API for IDE plugins.
>
> What is better in this case: classes or interfaces?
Classes:
- No reference counting mess.
- Easier to grasp conceptually.
- You can use ansistrings. Interfaces require widestrings. (olestring
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
Lazarus has the IDEIntf, the API for IDE plugins.
What is better in this case: classes or interfaces?
What if someday there are packages?
What if someday there is a closed source dll plugin?
3x Interfaces (you need a shared memmanager in this case)
Additional advantag
Lazarus has the IDEIntf, the API for IDE plugins.
What is better in this case: classes or interfaces?
What if someday there are packages?
What if someday there is a closed source dll plugin?
Mattias
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepasca
Thorsten Engler wrote:
IMO borland screwed up here when they introduced IInterface =
IUnknown.
No they didn't.
IMO :)
It was IMo cleaner (and you can mix interface types)
There are no different "types" of interfaces in Delphi/Kylix. Even if there
were (like there are in FPC) you can never e
An "as" cast from object to
interface is only allowed (at least in Delphi) if the compiler can
statically at compiletime determine that the type of the AObject variable
implements that interface.
Ouups is "as" used differently with interfaces than with objects ? With
Objects "as" does a typeca
> IMO borland screwed up here when they introduced IInterface =
> IUnknown.
No they didn't.
> It was IMo cleaner (and you can mix interface types)
There are no different "types" of interfaces in Delphi/Kylix. Even if there
were (like there are in FPC) you can never ever mix them.
> when they de
On 29/11/2007, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> However cmd := ins; should work.
>
Finally I can get my example code to compile and run correctly!
Thanks Marc. I also tried the above where TAddCommand implements two
interfaces. It works as well.
Regards,
- Graeme -
On 29/11/2007, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> type
>IInterface = interface
>end;
>
>IUnknown = interface(IInterface)
> _addref...
> _release
> Query
>end;
After all these messages, that does seem like the better solution.
Regards,
- Graeme -
> > AObject as ICorbaInterface ?
>
> And how does the underlying code do the lookup in the
> interfaces table?
There is no "lookup" required for this. An "as" cast from object to
interface is only allowed (at least in Delphi) if the compiler can
statically at compiletime determine that the type
On 29/11/2007, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I only know that a corba interface needs to be identified somehow
> otherwise it cant be looked up. (which can't atm)
> Be it through GUID, name or vtm.
>
So based on all these discussions on Corba interfaces, I can only make
one conclusi
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 29/11/2007, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://www.freepascal.org/mantis/view.php?id=6798
I can confirm that this doesn't work
{$Interfaces Corba}
var
cmd: ICommand;
holder: ICommandHolder;
ins: TAddCommand;
begin
ins := TAddCommand.Crea
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Marc Weustink wrote:
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Marc Weustink wrote:
How would you get a corba interface from a class where this class
implements one or more corba interfaces ? They somehow need to be
identified.
AObject as ICorbaInterface ?
And how does the underlying co
Marc Weustink wrote:
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Marc Weustink wrote:
How would you get a corba interface from a class where this class
implements one or more corba interfaces ? They somehow need to be
identified.
AObject as ICorbaInterface ?
And how does the underlying code do the lookup in the
On 29/11/2007, Marc Weustink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.freepascal.org/mantis/view.php?id=6798
I can confirm that this doesn't work
{$Interfaces Corba}
var
cmd: ICommand;
holder: ICommandHolder;
ins: TAddCommand;
begin
ins := TAddCommand.Create(memName1);
ins.GetInte
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Marc Weustink wrote:
How would you get a corba interface from a class where this class
implements one or more corba interfaces ? They somehow need to be
identified.
AObject as ICorbaInterface ?
And how does the underlying code do the lookup in the interfaces table?
Ma
Marc Weustink wrote:
How would you get a corba interface from a class where this class
implements one or more corba interfaces ? They somehow need to be
identified.
AObject as ICorbaInterface ?
Micha
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepa
Micha Nelissen wrote:
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
type
ICommand = interface
['{28D72102-D883-41A1-9585-D86B24D9C628}']
procedure Execute;
end;
What is the point of defining a GUID for a non-COM interface?
How would you get a corba interface from a class where this class
implements
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 29/11/2007, Thorsten Engler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
to another interface implemented by the same object (Or back to the object
for that matter).
I guess to get back to the Obj instance, you could let your ISomething
interface implement "function Instance" which r
On 29/11/2007, Graeme Geldenhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I read in a message thread from 2005 that when you use Corba style
> interfaces, interfaces are also not allowed to inherit from each
> other. Is this correct?
If that is supposed to be true, then we have a problem in FPC 2.2.0
I've
Sergei Gorelkin schreef:
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Beats me, I thought that might be needed for querying a object for
interfaces it supports... As far as CORBA is concerned, I'm just
shooting in the dark here... Information on CORBA usage is limited
and I can't find any FPC code examples to gi
On 29/11/2007, Sergei Gorelkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> Think of Corba-styled interfaces as about "interfaces without COM glue",
> not just as about "interfaces without refcounting". To get runtime
> typecasting features, you have to implement it yourself. OTOH, you are
> free to implement
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Beats me, I thought that might be needed for querying a object for
interfaces it supports... As far as CORBA is concerned, I'm just
shooting in the dark here... Information on CORBA usage is limited
and I can't find any FPC code examples to give me hints. It seems
qui
On 29/11/2007, Thorsten Engler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You can assign from an object to a (non-COM) interface variable:
>
> var
> Obj: TSomeObject;
> Intf: ISomeInterface;
> begin
> ...
> Intf := Obj as ISomeInterface;
[ I can't find the message I just sent in my Outbox, so here i
On 29/11/2007, Micha Nelissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > type
> > ICommand = interface
> > ['{28D72102-D883-41A1-9585-D86B24D9C628}']
> > procedure Execute;
> > end;
>
> What is the point of defining a GUID for a non-COM interface?
>
Beats me, I thought that might be needed for que
On 29/11/2007, Thorsten Engler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to another interface implemented by the same object (Or back to the object
> for that matter).
I guess to get back to the Obj instance, you could let your ISomething
interface implement "function Instance" which returns the Obj
instance.
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
type
ICommand = interface
['{28D72102-D883-41A1-9585-D86B24D9C628}']
procedure Execute;
end;
What is the point of defining a GUID for a non-COM interface?
Micha
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepasca
> I then wrote the following code to see if I could query for a
> supported interface.
>
> ...
> Well, the 'It worked' never appears and the cmd.Execute is
> never fired, so it's still a mystery how CORBA interfaces
> work. I'll see if Delphi help maybe mentions something.
You can assign fr
On 29/11/2007, Joao Morais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Any class. Afaik corba interfaces doesn't implement a method ?
>
OK, I wrote a quick test app. Added {$Interfaces Corba} in each unit
just to be save.
I declared two interfaces as follows:
type
ICommand = interface
['{28D72102-D883-
On 29/11/2007, Joao Morais <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ICommand = interface
>
> Under $interfaces com, interface = interface(iunknown)
That much I figured, but the question is what does 'interface' default
to if Corba style interfaces are used?
>
> 1. implement _addref, _release and Quer
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
So what do I use to create interfaces and classes that implement interfaces?
Which declaration style do I use? Or doesn't it make a difference?
type
ICommand = interface(IInterface)
vs
ICommand = interface(IUnkown)
They are exactly the same ? (D<=5 and D>=6 comp
Hi,
I previously asked what is the difference between the supported
$Interfaces types. eg: Corba vs COM.
>From those replies, they are very much the same, except that Corba
interfaces are NOT reference counted.
So what do I use to create interfaces and classes that implement interfaces?
Which dec
I'm trying to port a program i wrote in Delphi to
FPC & Kylix and found when an interfaced
object (COM interface, not CORBA) is instantiated
and call the _AddRef method, in Kylix is executed
one time (as expected) but in FPC is called
two times losing the refcount.
The correct result is this (co
94 matches
Mail list logo
