peter green schrieb:
if my understanding is correct this should allow all the widestrings
stuff to be moved to the library and people to implement thier own
string types as required (for example maybe a widestring counterpart
for some system that is similar to com)
What's wrong with
type
tmy
On Sunday 04 February 2007 10.57, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> peter green schrieb:
> > if my understanding is correct this should allow all the widestrings
> > stuff to be moved to the library and people to implement thier own
> > string types as required (for example maybe a widestring counterpart
>
Martin Schreiber schrieb:
On Sunday 04 February 2007 10.57, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
peter green schrieb:
if my understanding is correct this should allow all the widestrings
stuff to be moved to the library and people to implement thier own
string types as required (for example maybe a widestri
Op Sun, 4 Feb 2007, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
> > - No unique check by assigning to character.
>
> True. But maybe we should simply allow to overload [] then.
Not necessary, wrap it into an object and define a default property.
Daniël___
fpc-devel m
> Martin Schreiber schrieb:
> >
> > - Null based index.
>
> You can ignore the char 0?
Then you need to implement a conversion for pwidechar(x).
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/f
> Op Sun, 4 Feb 2007, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
>
> > > - No unique check by assigning to character.
> >
> > True. But maybe we should simply allow to overload [] then.
>
> Not necessary, wrap it into an object and define a default property.
- Object is not refcounted, which is why dyn array is
> What's wrong with
>
> type
>tmywidestring = type array of widechar;
a number of things
1: afaict it lacks the automatic refcounting/copy on write semantics of strings
2: it doesn't allow specification of the allocators/deallocators which causes
problems for its safe passing to dlls etc
__
Op Sun, 4 Feb 2007, schreef Marco van de Voort:
> > Op Sun, 4 Feb 2007, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
> >
> > > > - No unique check by assigning to character.
> > >
> > > True. But maybe we should simply allow to overload [] then.
> >
> > Not necessary, wrap it into an object and define a default
On 04 Feb 2007, at 12:01, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Sun, 4 Feb 2007, schreef Florian Klaempfl:
- No unique check by assigning to character.
True. But maybe we should simply allow to overload [] then.
Not necessary, wrap it into an object and define a default property.
Then you can't tak
On Sunday 04 February 2007 11.58, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> > - Null based index.
>
> You can ignore the char 0?
>
[...]
Do you think it is possible with this methods to achieve the same or better
performance as with ansi strings or refcounted widestrings?
Martin
Op Sun, 4 Feb 2007, schreef Martin Schreiber:
> On Sunday 04 February 2007 11.58, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
> > > - Null based index.
> >
> > You can ignore the char 0?
> >
> [...]
>
> Do you think it is possible with this methods to achieve the same or better
> performance as with ansi strings
Here is an interesting reading:
http://blogs.codegear.com/abauer/archive/2006/11/01/28852.aspx
Maybe, the suggested FreeAndNil implementation can be usefull. See in
comments.
BTW: Is the bellow afirmation also valid for fpc??
"we alluded to the fact that while the constructor of an object is
> Here is an interesting reading:
> http://blogs.codegear.com/abauer/archive/2006/11/01/28852.aspx
> Maybe, the suggested FreeAndNil implementation can be
> usefull. See in comments.
Feel free to take it... But it's x86 specific asm code...
> BTW: Is the bellow afirmation also valid for fpc??
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
