> On Dec 2, 2018, at 10:53 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> <fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
>
> Specialization is expensive. If specialization can be avoided, it should be.
> Not to mention that the non-generic one could have more optimized code.
> Though to be sure I'll test with Delphi, we'll have to be compatible there
> anyway.
>
I think the “dummy” sym which is added after the generic procedure is
overwriting the existing symbols. In the example below (my code disabled now)
DoThis gives an error because it thinks DoThis is the dummy sym. If we want
this to work the dummy needs to keep track of existing procsyms, unless there’s
another way to get that information?
Personally I’m fine with this because I didn’t expect to be mixing generic
procedures anyways.
procedure DoThis(msg:integer);
begin
writeln('DoThis:',msg);
end;
procedure DoThis(msg:string);
begin
writeln('DoThis:',msg);
end;
generic procedure DoThis<T>(msg:T);
begin
writeln('DoThis$1:',msg);
end;
begin
DoThis('a’); // ERROR: "Generics without specialization cannot be used
as a type for a variable"
end.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
