Honza wrote:
>
> I guess some memory and/or time could be saved in certain usage
> patterns compared to TSTringList and String. There is now a dumb
> benchmark on the blog, but nobody should trust other's benchmarks :)
Thanks. Good news is that it looks consistently faster than both String and
St
In our previous episode, Honza said:
> > Append+Append+...+Read...
>
> I agree in all points, even while having some more ideas on the
> naming. If it will be considered for FCL, then let the dev team pick
> identifiers of their choice and any other changes/improvements - I'll
> be happy to implem
On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:45:55 -0300, Fl?vio Etrusco wrote:
> Some (hopefully constructive) commentaries (and then I would suggest
> to add to LCL or FCL):
> 1) It could be called really TStringBuffer;
> 2) The 'W' methods could be called 'Append';
> 3) The GetS method could truncate the string to av
Honza wrote:
> Probably just reinventing the wheel - I was not able to quickly find a
> String builder/buffer elsewhere.
Thanks for the contribution. Could you explain what the advantages are of
that string buffer object compared to a standard string types like
AnsiString or TStringList?
Regar
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Honza wrote:
> Probably just reinventing the wheel - I was not able to quickly find a
> String builder/buffer elsewhere.
>
> Source code for anyone possible interested is published on a blog (no
> ads there, so I hope it's OK to post the link):
>
> http://freepascal
Probably just reinventing the wheel - I was not able to quickly find a
String builder/buffer elsewhere.
Source code for anyone possible interested is published on a blog (no
ads there, so I hope it's OK to post the link):
http://freepascal-bits.blogspot.com/2010/02/simple-string-buffer.html
-bfl
