> On Apr 25, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Michael Van Canneyt <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> No, because it introduces additional complications.
>
> We can think of extending the features of objects or advanced records.
> Your proposal entails a very different model of handling, which matches more
> how objects and records are currently handled.
Isn’t putting a stack based pointer inside the class syntax easiest? Maybe I
don’t understand but it seems to be you’re just swapping a pointer around.
After I had the idea this morning it’s appearing now that is more of
optimization like “inline” or “constref" which basically says “this class
exists only for this scope” so the compilers knows it can not call GetMem and
call the destructor at the end of the scope. It’s not really a new model, just
an optimization on classes which is meant to solve a very particular and
frequent pattern of alloc on function start/dealloc on function end.
That sounds really good and simple to me but I believe me I understand why the
compiler teams doesn’t like to add features and clutter up the language. It’s a
hard call.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
