Spir wrote:
> I need the simplest and most efficient version, because the type I'm now
> designing will be the elementary building block of a rather big system.
If you design your class hierarchy well, it ought to be possible to switch the
base later on.
Personally, I reinvented the wheel by cre
On Fri, 28 May 2010, spir ☣ wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:03:28 +0200 (CEST)
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
TStrings provides an abstract interface. It allows you to associate an
object with each string in the list.
This means you can do a
L.Strings[i]:=Key;
L.Objects[i]:=MyObject;
Or
On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:03:28 +0200 (CEST)
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> TStrings provides an abstract interface. It allows you to associate an
> object with each string in the list.
>
> This means you can do a
>
>L.Strings[i]:=Key;
>L.Objects[i]:=MyObject;
>
> Or, in 1 statement:
>
>
On Fri, 28 May 2010, spir ☣ wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:25:59 +0200
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
I would like to know the underlying structure of TString (linked list,
"flexible-ised" dynamic array, what else?).
TStrings provides no storage.
I think that TStringList should be wh
On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:25:59 +0200
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> > I would like to know the underlying structure of TString (linked list,
> > "flexible-ised" dynamic array, what else?).
>
> TStrings provides no storage.
>
> I think that TStringList should be what you are looking for.
Hello,
2010/5/28 spir ☣ :
> Side-question: What is the purpose of introducing unimplemented methods?
> Sub-classes can extend a super-class anyway, no? Is it just an incentive to
> implement those methods?
TStrings is a an abstract class, which means that you shouldn't use it
directly. It only
Hello,
I'm looking for a "convenient" way to implement a type for kinds of flexible
records. "Best" means simple and efficient. A flexible record is a kind of set
of name:value symbol, but completely modifyable at runtime. The necessary
untyped aspect of the question is handled by values beeing
