Marcos Douglas wrote:
Make a function to return a global variable does not make it read only.
If I use your function like this:
o := InitText;
o := nil; //this is the same xInitText = nil
Disagree. You are changing the value of o, not of xInitText. xInitText is
initialised once somewhere in th
On Sat, 5 Mar 2011, Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior wrote:
i have a problem with TBlowfishDecryptStream :
[snip]
The problem now is that it eats chars at the end of the generated
lBuffer (tested by taking a tmemorystream thru tblowfishencryptstream,
then taking the result to this tblowfishdecryp
Check those two programs
=== Program A =
Program A;
Uses
Classes,
BlowFish;
Var
lSource,
lIntermediate : TMemoryStream;
lEncrypter : TBlowfishEncryptStream;
Begin
lSource := TMemoryStream.Create;
lSource.LoadFromFile('test7.pas')
On Sun, 6 Mar 2011, Jorge Aldo G. de F. Junior wrote:
Check those two programs
=== Program A =
[snip]
= EOF =
The problem consists that, if lIntermediate.Size is not equal to
lSource.Size, i will not know how much bytes to "copyfrom" from the
decrypter.
Correct. You may n
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Mattias Gaertner
wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Mar 2011 23:07:45 -0300
> Marcos Douglas wrote:
>
>> If circular reference not is a good practice (even if to use a
>> implementation section) then I have to put all code, that works
>> together, in the same unit, right?
>
> No,
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
> Marcos Douglas wrote:
>
Make a function to return a global variable does not make it read only.
If I use your function like this:
o := InitText;
o := nil; //this is the same xInitText = nil
>>>
>>> Disagree. You are ch
Using functions is the only way I know (still it's not that "read only",
accessing from assembly code still allows modification). For pointer based
types, you could give a copy of the instance instead of the original one (if
you want a better read only semantics where the function has persistent
re
leledumbo wrote:
Using functions is the only way I know (still it's not that "read only",
accessing from assembly code still allows modification). For pointer based
types, you could give a copy of the instance instead of the original one (if
you want a better read only semantics where the functio
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Mark Morgan Lloyd
wrote:
> leledumbo wrote:
>>
>> Using functions is the only way I know (still it's not that "read only",
>> accessing from assembly code still allows modification). For pointer based
>> types, you could give a copy of the instance instead of the or
