On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 16:51:54 -0300
Marcos Douglas wrote:
> >> Why I ask this:
> >> If not exists the variable obj2 in call obj1.createObj will happen a
> >> memory leak, right? Because there is not variable to release.
> >
> > Do you mean using a function as a statement? (for its so-called "side
Thank you Tomas for tracking down the bug and filing the bug report. It was
much appreciated.
Cheers,
Noel
- Original Message -
From: "Tomas Hajny"
To: "FPC-Pascal users discussions"
Cc: ; "Noel and Marie"
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 5:32 AM
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] question abou
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 16:51:54 -0300
Marcos Douglas wrote:
> What do you mean "a function has effects is already bad"?
> A function/procedure always has effects, don't?
IMHO he means that a function should only return a value and not change the
state of an object, a variable or any other program s
If Memory allocation is the point of discussion and you need to create
objects ...
You should nest the creations in order of usage.
In your declarations you needed bot Object1 and Object2 as TMyObject;
That said the proper usage would be:
obj1:=TMyObject.Create;
Try
obj2:=TMyObject.Create;
T
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 5 July 2010 22:03, Marcos Douglas wrote:
The ask is:
If a function creates, inside, a object and there is no variable to
receive this pointer, will happen a memory leak?
Yes you will have a memory leak. Easy way to test is to enable the
heaptr
On 5 July 2010 22:03, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> The ask is:
> If a function creates, inside, a object and there is no variable to
> receive this pointer, will happen a memory leak?
Yes you will have a memory leak. Easy way to test is to enable the
heaptrc unit (compiler option -gh). On terminating t
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:46:39 -0300
Marcos Douglas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Mattias Gaertner
> wrote:
> >
> > No. This will create a mem leak.
>
> Thanks Mattias, I expect that...
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Martin wrote:
> >
> > that is the same as if you wrote
> >
>
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Mattias Gaertner
wrote:
>
> No. This will create a mem leak.
Thanks Mattias, I expect that...
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Martin wrote:
>
> that is the same as if you wrote
>
> TsomeObject.create;
>
> without assigning the created object to a variable. Both
On 05/07/2010 21:26, Marcos Douglas wrote:
If I have a variable myObj, I can do this:
someObj := myObj.createObj;
This is the same:
someObj := TsomeObject.create;
Rigth?
But if a remove the variable *someObj* and call like this:
myObj.createObj; // I _removed_ the *someObj* here!!!
What will
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 17:26:52 -0300
Marcos Douglas wrote:
>[...]
> But if a remove the variable *someObj* and call like this:
> myObj.createObj; // I _removed_ the *someObj* here!!!
>
> What will happen with the "result" variable? Is it released by the compiler?
No. This will create a mem leak.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Martin wrote:
>
> That would be, if a crash happens inside obj1.createObj? Because otherwise
> the obj is stored in obj2.
>
> If it happens in there, then handle it in there => there is result as
> variable.
>
> function TMyObject.creatObj : TSomeObj;
> begin
> res
On 05/07/2010 21:03, Marcos Douglas wrote:
I use this technique a lot, but thanks :) Unfortunately, this is not
the *problem*.
The ask is:
If a function creates, inside, a object and there is no variable to
receive this pointer, will happen a memory leak?
In my eg before, this is Okay:
obj2 :=
Hi Martin
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Martin wrote:
> On 05/07/2010 19:48, Marcos Douglas wrote:
>>
>> We can to use methods of an object to create others objects, or this
>> is a bad programming practice?
>> eg:
>> var
>> obj1, obj2: TmyObject;
>> begin
>> obj1 := tobj1.create; //ok
>>
On 25 Jun 10, at 8:07, Noel and Marie wrote:
Hi Noel,
> Thanks Tomas. I didn't see your promise to look at the problem.
Sorry, it took somewhat longer, but the results are here:
1) It works as expected if _not_ using unit Crt.
2) There is a bug in implementation of unit Crt for Windows. This
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 4:07 PM, spir wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:48:40 -0300
> Marcos Douglas wrote:
>
> Questions of style: just a personal opinion.
>
>> We can to use methods of an object to create others objects, or this
>> is a bad programming practice?
>> eg:
>> var
>> obj1, obj2: TmyOb
On 05/07/2010 19:48, Marcos Douglas wrote:
We can to use methods of an object to create others objects, or this
is a bad programming practice?
eg:
var
obj1, obj2: TmyObject;
begin
obj1 := tobj1.create; //ok
obj2 := obj1.createObj; // is this recommended?
This is used very often like
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 15:48:40 -0300
Marcos Douglas wrote:
Questions of style: just a personal opinion.
> We can to use methods of an object to create others objects, or this
> is a bad programming practice?
> eg:
> var
> obj1, obj2: TmyObject;
> begin
> obj1 := tobj1.create; //ok
> obj2 := o
We can to use methods of an object to create others objects, or this
is a bad programming practice?
eg:
var
obj1, obj2: TmyObject;
begin
obj1 := tobj1.create; //ok
obj2 := obj1.createObj; // is this recommended?
try
//...
finally
obj1.free;
obj2.free;
end;
end;
Why I ask this
18 matches
Mail list logo
