> On May 8, 2021, at 7:59 AM, Sven Barth via fpc-devel
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It has the exact same problems that my branch had (especially the interaction
> of reference counted instances with non-reference counted ones).
>
> Using a variable/parameter/field based approach (like the idea with managed
> records and default fields) is the more flexible one compared to the type or
> instance based one and thus it's more favorable.
I still don't understand how the record approach is that much different from a
managed class type which calls the same set of management operators. Can we
make a pros-cons list to clear this up and give an example of "especially the
interaction of reference counted instances with non-reference counted ones"?
Here's the most recent things we brought up:
- Records can't be cast in a way that would break reference counting (like a
managed class being cast to TObject would).
- Generic records would create a proliferation of new types for all classes you
wanted managed, so instead of using TFPGList<TSomeObject> you're using
TManagedSomeObjectList or TManaged<TFPGList<TSomeObject>>, or worse yet
"specialize TManaged<specialize TFPGList<TSomeObject>>"
Otherwise the same set of circular references exists but I'm not sure about
your concern about mixing managed types yet.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
