Ewald wrote:
Once upon a time, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
No, because the elements in a set are dictated by their position. A
set that can contain anything between 0 and 256 elements occupies 8
bytes in memory with the (bit representing the) 0 element at one end
and the (bit representing the) 256 element at the other, a set to
contain up to (say) 257 elements would require more space and that's
not supported.
Probably a typo, but 8 bit * 8 bytes = 64 elements. So I suppose you
mean `[...] occupies 32 bytes in memory [...]`?
Just so nobody gets confused :-)
Definitely a typo, or rather the fingers running ahead of the brain. I
was thinking of various compilers I'd come across that ordered things
differently and how best to not imply that [0] invariably mapped onto $0001.
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
