Hello FPC-Pascal,
Sunday, May 9, 2010, 8:04:24 PM, you wrote:
s> Sorry to have launched such an argument by starting a new
s> thread "about dynamic array". My purpose, as a newcomer discovering
s> the world of fpc, was just to get information I could not find
s> myself to help me and progress in
> c> TList wraps TFPList, which is based internally on an array. So access
> c> is fast; insertion, deletion not.
>
> But it is faster than inserting elements in a dynamic array (unless
> reference counted ones) because it usually moves less amount of data
> (4/8 bytes per element).
Implementing
Hello FPC-Pascal,
Thursday, May 6, 2010, 9:50:34 PM, you wrote:
DC> The short answer is because you have not set p2 to nil as you did to p1.
I do not want to be rude but, do you read all the message ? I was
trying to be ironic, but seems that I was unable maybe due my very
limited english, sorry
Hello FPC-Pascal,
Thursday, May 6, 2010, 8:58:33 PM, you wrote:
>> faster in fact. If the user plans to use a record (which is my
>> suspect) with TList he must "new" and "dispose" the elements and he
>> will end up with a dyn array of pointers after all, which is a TList.
FK> A dyn. array of rec
Hello FPC-Pascal,
Thursday, May 6, 2010, 4:58:41 PM, you wrote:
>> c> TList wraps TFPList, which is based internally on an array. So access
>> c> is fast; insertion, deletion not.
>>
>> But it is faster than inserting elements in a dynamic array (unless
>> reference counted ones) because it usua
Hello FPC-Pascal,
Thursday, May 6, 2010, 3:53:59 PM, you wrote:
c> TList wraps TFPList, which is based internally on an array. So access
c> is fast; insertion, deletion not.
But it is faster than inserting elements in a dynamic array (unless
reference counted ones) because it usually moves less
