art Security, version of virus signature
database 5097 (20100509) __
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
http://www.eset.com
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Hello FPC-Pascal,
Sunday, May 9, 2010, 8:04:24 PM, you wrote:
s> Sorry to have launched such an argument by starting a new
s> thread "about dynamic array". My purpose, as a newcomer discovering
s> the world of fpc, was just to get information I could not find
s> myself to help me and progress in
On Sun, 9 May 2010 16:58:49 +0200
José Mejuto wrote:
> So finally we get a common point of view :)
Sorry to have launched such an argument by starting a new thread "about dynamic
array". My purpose, as a newcomer discovering the world of fpc, was just to get
information I could not find myself
Hello FPC-Pascal,
Sunday, May 9, 2010, 1:51:20 PM, you wrote:
VH> Well, according to this, the dynamic array performs slightly
VH> faster in many cases (which is supporting my previously expressed
VH> doubts, isn't it?). Of course, with the above-mentioned cost of
VH> keeping track of the data st
Hello FPC-Pascal,
Sunday, May 9, 2010, 1:40:33 PM, you wrote:
>> Thank you, at least one catch my whole idea about when TList can be
>> faster that dynamic array or a plain GetMem for the array.
VH> Well, you didn't say "can" previously, you said "it is
VH> faster". That's quite a difference.
Ok
> Hello FPC-Pascal,
>
> Saturday, May 8, 2010, 4:42:46 PM, you wrote:
>
> VH> So, apart from a possibly more optimized implementation (like
> VH> not changing the allocated memory size on each single
> VH> insertion/deletion) how do you come up with the idea that adding
> VH> another layer would
> Saturday, May 8, 2010, 5:07:12 PM, you wrote:
>
> JM> And depending on the usage patterns and the size of the
> JM> elements stored in the array, it probably can be. That's all he
> JM> was saying, and only as a side remark in the context of the
> JM> discussion (which was meanly to steer away a
