Am Samstag, den 06.05.2006, 19:36 +0300 schrieb Geno Roupsky: > > > 2006/5/6, Marc Santhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Am Freitag, den 05.05.2006, 11:03 +0300 schrieb Geno Roupsky: > > In fact you could have different function for every kind of > sort and > > switch them on the fly when the properties determining the > kind of > > sort that should be made changes. In my experience there is > no much > > code duplication involved in this technique and you could > make for > > example one compare function for every field, after that you > make a > > _complex_ ones calling the simple ones. > > The only thing I'm afraid of is stumbling into threading > issues in the > future (most likely when I have fogotten the details of > sorting ;). > > It is the response of the compare function not the sorting one to > synchronize whatever global(outside it's scope) variables is accesses, > so no matter what approach you take you still will have issues with > threads.
Yes, and it is much easier to deal with this in objects as instances of classes than to do it on procedure level counting bytes with getmem (imo). That's why i wanted to use a function of object (avoiding nasty globals). I've written it already ans it is very clear and compact. Regards, Marc _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
