Quite unusual compiler behaviour (for older compilers) as seen here:
Quite unusual compiler behaviour (for older compilers) as seen here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/41181767/patching-instance-class-requires-base-class-to-be-in-the-same-unit
Has anyone experienced and documented this before?
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/41181767/patching-instance-class-requires-base-class-to-be-in-the-same-unit
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/41181767/patching-instance-class-requires-base-class-to-be-in-the-same-unit
Has anyone experienced and documented this before?
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/41181767/patching-instance-class-requires-base-class-to-be-in-the-same-unit
Paul TOTH Read more about it here: http://stackoverflow.com/a/9887684/505088
ReplyDeleteDavid Heffernan why not just a new TButton class in front of the form (or in a Unit put after StdCrls in the uses clause).
ReplyDeletetype
// hack TButton
TButton = class(Vcl.StdCtrls.TButton)
public
procedure Click; override;
end
Tform1 = class(TForm)
Button1: TButton
..
Paul TOTH I've no idea at all. I didn't ask the question, I didn't choose that approach.
ReplyDelete