Is there anything that stops me defining one type to be based on another?

Obviously in classes you can do that, but can I say a new type is a string "underneath", while getting the type safety of classes?

(Related obviously to my datetime question, where I'd like to stop random strings getting copied in to my datetime properties).

--

Matthew Jones

Matthew,

You may do that, but any string still be assignable to a variable of this new type.

ooptimum wrote:

> Matthew,
>
> You may do that, but any string still be assignable to a variable of this new type.

Thanks - better than nothing I guess.

--

Matthew Jones

Matthew,

<< Is there anything that stops me defining one type to be based on another?  >>

No.  As ooptimum points out, you will still be able to assign the base type to any variables/paramters that use the new type.  This is true even if you define a new type instead of a type synonym:

TMyType = type String;

Tim Young
Elevate Software
www.elevatesoft.com