> I also wonder how much of an optimization it actually is ? Maybe
> 0.01%
> more performance ?
"
1) as mentioned in the original mail, the current transformation is
implemented for saving memory, not for improving performance
"
This wasn't clear, it only mentions gaps. What kind of gaps ?
On Thursday 19 July 2012 05:13:01 Luiz Americo Pereira Camara wrote:
> I also have somethings in fpc rtl/fcl that also don't like or changing
> would simplify my work. But if we start to change base classes at each
> developer request we may end with a mess.
> Just to be clear, i'm not against all
Em 18/7/2012 03:19, Martin Schreiber escreveu:
Thank you. There are more items in the db.pas list...
But I think first we should concentrate on classes.pas because I really don't
want to fork it. Forking db.pas is less problematic and I probably prefer it
in place of an endless discussion and in
Am 18.07.2012 10:08 schrieb "Martin Schreiber" :
>
> On Wednesday 18 July 2012 09:33:09 michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
>
> > I think you are missing an important point:
> >
> > You want some radical changes, so I expect you to be the one giving the
> > reasons/motivations for a change. I want to
On Wednesday 18 July 2012 10:50:36 michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
> >> If you don't give a detailed explanation why you need to manipulate
> >> all these private fields outside of the proper methods, then I cannot
> >> help you find solutions for the problems you experience, so please:
> >> ela
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Martin Schreiber wrote:
On Wednesday 18 July 2012 09:33:09 michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
I think you are missing an important point:
You want some radical changes, so I expect you to be the one giving the
reasons/motivations for a change. I want to help find solutio
On Wednesday 18 July 2012 09:33:09 michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
> I think you are missing an important point:
>
> You want some radical changes, so I expect you to be the one giving the
> reasons/motivations for a change. I want to help find solutions, but not
> at the price of destroying wha
On Wednesday 18 July 2012 09:43:16 michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 July 2012 08:19:02 Martin Schreiber wrote:
> >> Used in order TParams create tmseparam items instead of TParam:
> >>
> >> TCollection:
> >> - FItemClass
> >
> > Pr
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Martin Schreiber wrote:
On Wednesday 18 July 2012 08:19:02 Martin Schreiber wrote:
Used in order TParams create tmseparam items instead of TParam:
TCollection:
- FItemClass
Probably can be solved in a forked db.pas
Or by 2 other solutions:
* having a global variable
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012, Martin Schreiber wrote:
On Tuesday 17 July 2012 09:40:36 michael.vancann...@wisa.be wrote:
Maybe, but what about performance? Another complication is the
"updatebuffer" with the "oldvalues".
Thinking about it:
I would allocate the buffer as is, with for all string fiel
10 matches
Mail list logo
