Ryan Joseph schrieb am Do., 7. Juni 2018,
03:32:
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 2018, at 4:25 AM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal <
> fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org> wrote:
> >
> > However you can't do that with indexed properties (which is the feature
> that Ryan meant) as the value returned by the property gette
> On Jun 7, 2018, at 4:25 AM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> wrote:
>
> However you can't do that with indexed properties (which is the feature that
> Ryan meant) as the value returned by the property getter is merely a copy and
> not a reference.
>
Is there anyway to fix this btw or can I m
Nitorami schrieb am Mi., 6. Juni 2018, 22:39:
> >2) dynamic arrays can index directly into records and write to fields but
> the [] operator overload can’t do this.
>
> I don't understand this, can you provide an example ?
>
With dynamic arrays that contain records you can do this:
=== code beg
>2) dynamic arrays can index directly into records and write to fields but
the [] operator overload can’t do this.
I don't understand this, can you provide an example ?
--
Sent from: http://free-pascal-general.1045716.n5.nabble.com/
___
fpc-pascal ma
I fixed up my code on GitHub so the records members including the ref count are
actually on the heap so the ref count is actually used now. :) There’s still 2
problems though that make dynamic arrays better:
1) the := operator for implicit arrays like [1,2,3] is bugged currently so
requires a
> On Jun 4, 2018, at 9:12 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
> All the rest of what you do remains exactly the same. Dynamic arrays do far
> less than what you seem to assume.
As noted the inclocked()/declocked() calls destroyed some performance sensitive
parts of my code while testing and I
> On Jun 4, 2018, at 9:21 PM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
>
> It seems that the inclocked()/declocked() operations completely destroy the
> performance of the OP's application (which I find strange) so he never want
> to touch dynamic arrays anymore as he wrote.
It was one hyper sensitive part o
On Monday 04 June 2018 16:12:27 Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> They make life easier by reducing the need for manual memory
> management. No more, no less. Other than that they behave like normal
> arrays on the heap.
>
It seems that the inclocked()/declocked() operations completely destroy the
pe
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Jun 4, 2018, at 5:46 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Well, as far as I can see, you are repeating what the compiler already does for
you out of the box.
But it’s customizable, that’s the point. What happens when you remove an
element from a dyn
> On Jun 4, 2018, at 5:46 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
> Well, as far as I can see, you are repeating what the compiler already does
> for you out of the box.
But it’s customizable, that’s the point. What happens when you remove an
element from a dynamic array? I don’t even know where
> On Jun 4, 2018, at 4:39 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
> The array is private. This means that the reference count will be 0 or 1.
I looked at the examples on the wiki and think by private you mean that the ref
count does indeed need to be a pointer so it gets updated for all reference
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Jun 4, 2018, at 4:39 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I fail to see why you need management operators for this.
just because I wanted the array implementation available and to get automatic
cleanup. I don’t know all the stuff dynamic arrays do be
> On Jun 4, 2018, at 4:39 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
> I fail to see why you need management operators for this.
just because I wanted the array implementation available and to get automatic
cleanup. I don’t know all the stuff dynamic arrays do behind the scenes and
that worries me
On Mon, 4 Jun 2018, Ryan Joseph wrote:
Since we were talking about dynamic arrays I was curious to see if they could
be implemented using the new management operators so I made a little proof of
concept by cobbling together old code. It’s not complete or very good by any
means but I think i
Since we were talking about dynamic arrays I was curious to see if they could
be implemented using the new management operators so I made a little proof of
concept by cobbling together old code. It’s not complete or very good by any
means but I think it’s a pretty interesting alternative to usin
15 matches
Mail list logo
