On Wednesday 23 July 2008 7:46 pm, Marc Santhoff wrote: > That's interesting and nice. Can I assume the same is valid for dyn > arrays in a procedure or function context?
The short answer is yes. There was recently (about a month ago) a discussion about some of these very issues, from 21 to 29 June. I'd encourage you to read it. (Unfortunately I erroneously made the subject line "memory management with open arrays and classes"; and I replied to another thread instead of starting a new thread, so the messages don't appear in a nice little self-contained thread. doh!) http://www.mail-archive.com/fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org/msg12918.html ...and three messages following; make sure you read the one by Jonas, as the first reply contains some misinformation. ~David. > > Normal vars do "behave" that way ... > > program x; > > procedure a; > var > s: array of string; > begin > SetLength(s, count); > s[0] := 'a string'; > > ... do something ... > > end; { no freeing of the array strings needed? } Indeed not. Even if s was an array of ansistrings, they would still be cleaned up automatically when the var goes out of scope. > > > Marc _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
