Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!hc!pprg.unm.edu!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!endor!siegel
From: siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Object Pascal
Keywords: Object Pascal
Message-ID: <1096@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 27 Jan 89 15:43:38 GMT
References: <7096@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Organization: Symantec/THINK Technologies, Bedford, MA
Lines: 36

In article <7096@spool.cs.wisc.edu> engber@shorty.cs.wisc.edu (Mike Engber) writes:
>
>The answer to my question is probably compiler specific. A clever
>compiler could have implented Object Pascal so that Doyle's warning
>were not applicable.  I use LSP. Are you listening Rich?

	I assume that "are you listening Rich" means "Why isn't Lightspeed
Pascal clever enough to do this", right?

	1) Because of the way that objects are implemented (as memory blocks),
they are best allocated as relocatables, since the Mac memory manager works
best with relocatable blocks. MPW Pascal uses the same scheme for allocating
objects.

	2) In Object C, it is possible to label an object "direct", which
makes the programmer responsible for the storage management of his objects.
Given that freedom, how would you recommend implementing objects?

In other words, the question isn't compiler-specific, it's OS-specific. 
(Actually, it's pretty Mac-specific; I don't know of Object Pascal
implementations on any other system.)

		--Rich




Rich Siegel
Staff Software Developer
THINK Technologies Division, Symantec Corp.
Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu
UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel
Phone: (617) 275-4800 x305

Any opinions stated in this article do not necessarily reflect the views
or policies of Symantec Corporation or its employees.