On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 18:06:36 +0200 Michael Schnell via Lazarus <lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org> wrote:
>[...] > The only difference to the current status is that with the "dynamic" > string brand the content of the "bytes per element" field is not > predefined by the variable declaration but can change when something is > assigned to that (additional) brand of string variables (I feel that > this is clearly stated in the paper). Hence for that (additional) brand > of string variables the compiler needs to generate code to read this > field when implementing the built-in functions. This "dynamicstring" sounds like Rawbytestring times two. Any function accessing the inner chars of a "dynamicstring" has to handle Rawbytestring codepages and unicodestring and array of byte/word/dword. If this is the price for avoiding some conversions, many programmers will become unhappy. Michael, please tell me your proposal has some serious advantages. I don't see them. Mattias -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus-ide.org https://lists.lazarus-ide.org/listinfo/lazarus