Prof A Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) wrote:
The other question is if Root is in fact a proper ancestor of TObject (not by definition, of course, but perhaps by their features). Have you, or someone else, checked this?
AFAIK, in Delphi, TObject has no ancestor, either by definition or feature. It is an abstract object that is simply "TObject = Class". But then it also becomes the implicit ancestor of anything defined as "Class". Perhaps there is something circular or recursive going on here?
This would be what I meant by definition. By their features, I mean that someone would have to compare the features of TObject in Delphi and Root in OOE and verify whether the latter are a proper (and compatible) subset of the latter. Perhaps Waldek or someone else has done that already, but I don't know ATM. If that's not the case, I think this idea will fail.
PS: I don't think there is any need to hide TObject in OOE mode, as long as it is not the implicit ancestor object in that mode.
I think the "need" is just the same as for hiding Root in Delphi mode (as long as it's not the implicit ancestor). Both may not be strictly required, but would be in accordance to our policy of only allowing the dialect's features in a dialect mode.
Frank