Michael Van Canneyt via fpc-devel <[email protected]> schrieb am Sa., 6. Sep. 2025, 20:53:
> > > On Sat, 6 Sep 2025, Sven Barth via fpc-devel wrote: > > > michael via fpc-devel <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., > 4. > > Sep. 2025, 09:29: > > > >> On 2025-09-04 08:55, Hairy Pixels via fpc-devel wrote: > >>> On Sep 4, 2025 at 1:43:23 PM, michael via fpc-devel > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Personally, I think we already have too much intrinsics to begin > >>>> with; > >>>> no matter their behaviour. But that is another discussion > >>>> entirely... > >>> > >>> How so? The reason intrinsics are used is because they can’t be > >>> replicated at runtime. If you remove them then you lose that > >>> functionality entirely. > >> > >> As I wrote, for some it is needed. No arguments there. > >> > >> But AFAIK many regular functions such as Length(), Inc/Dec() etc. are > >> also converted to intrinsics. > >> > >> No doubt for performance reasons, but I'd rather have as little as > >> possible "compiler magic". > >> > > > > Not performance reasons, but because they need to be usable by many types > > and thus can't be expressed using ordinary Pascal in a typesafe way. > > Why inc() dec() cannot be expressed in a typesafe way ? > We have InterlockedIncrement etc, and they do the same thing ? > Inc() and Dec() also work with enums which are custom types. In each case, my point of view remains that the less intrinsics we have, the > better it is. > I agree. Intrinsics should only be added when necessary. Regards, Sven >
_______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [email protected] https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
