Am 04.04.2017 05:25 schrieb "Ryan Joseph" :
>
> Thanks for the tips, I appreciate it.
>
> This is all pretty trivial but it’s kind of annoying that using an inline
class function is more efficient than a constructor despite having
identical functionality. It's tempting to remove the constructors no
Thanks for the tips, I appreciate it.
This is all pretty trivial but it’s kind of annoying that using an inline class
function is more efficient than a constructor despite having identical
functionality. It's tempting to remove the constructors now and replace them
with inline functions but it
On 01.04.2017 09:59, Ryan Joseph wrote:
>
>> On Apr 1, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
>> wrote:
>>
>> I haven't looked at it in detail, but it could be that both have similar
>> efficiency. You could also add "inline" to the MakePoint function which
>> should get rid of a potentia
> On Apr 1, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> wrote:
>
> I haven't looked at it in detail, but it could be that both have similar
> efficiency. You could also add "inline" to the MakePoint function which
> should get rid of a potential temporary variable if the compiler doesn't do
Am 01.04.2017 05:59 schrieb "Ryan Joseph" :
>
> I’ve been using a design pattern in my code which I think is probably
pretty stupid so I’d like to make sure. Assume I have a type like TPoint
below and I want to set the value I’ll doing something like point :=
PointMake(x, y). How does the compiler
I’ve been using a design pattern in my code which I think is probably pretty
stupid so I’d like to make sure. Assume I have a type like TPoint below and I
want to set the value I’ll doing something like point := PointMake(x, y). How
does the compiler handle this? It probably has to allocate some
