On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Jon Foster
wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong: It would seem like that your free implementation
>> doesn't actually do anything, other than fulfilling the obligation of
>> having a "free". If I do this:
>>
>
> var
> o: TObject;
>
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> >
> > if you are talking about executeprocess, test again with trunk.
>
> At the moment we are using FPC 2.6.4 and might move to FPC 3.0.2 when
> that is final. Not using Trunk I'm afraid.
>
> Was the 260 char limit removed/fixed in FPC trunk?
On 27/01/17 19:37, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
Object Pascal semantic of calling .Free suggests that "o" would no
longer be a valid object.
If a dummy Free method is available for JVM, then such semantic is violated.
Calling Free is not defined as "any further access to this object must
now
On 01/27/2017 08:48 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
On 27/01/17 02:31, Jon Foster wrote:
But any classes defined in Pascal provide those methods, if they descend
from the default TObject. I think I read somewhere that classes can be
defined that descend from the base Java class but I haven't done it.
On 27/01/17 22:18, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
How about moving "nil"-ing of the reference into default FreeInstance
for JVM target?
FreeInstance is a regular instance method. Instance methods cannot nil
the self pointer (well, they can, but that will just nil the local copy
of the
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> It is defined as "if the instance is not nil, then it calls the destroy
> method, and next it calls FreeInstance". You could override FreeInstance to
> not free memory on any platform.
>
> However, if JVM free method
El 27/01/2017 a las 3:52, fredvs escribió:
Hello Silvio:
Yes, we are on the good way.
Following your advice, here from https-url-opus the result of :
Hello,
The first thing to debug this problems is to determine the expected data
for opus_test_memory. Usually streams (audio, video, etc...)
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Michael Schnell wrote:
>
> If destroying an object is not necessary, the class should provide a dummy
> Free procedure. So the application programmer always can/should use Free.
>
> Why dummy? if it should be like this
procedure TObject.Free;
Hello.
> Some streams requires you set its cursor to 0 before writing/reading
> buffer, so you need to check it:
> OutPipe.Seek(0, soBeginning);
> InPipe.Seek(0, soBeginning);
> InPipe.Read(BufferURL[0],PipeBufferSize);
=>
"Exception at 0043A720: EPipeSeek:
Cannot seek on pipes."
On 27/01/17 02:31, Jon Foster wrote:
But any classes defined in Pascal provide those methods, if they descend
from the default TObject. I think I read somewhere that classes can be
defined that descend from the base Java class but I haven't done it.
All classes on the JVM descend from a Java
On 2017-01-26 14:28, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> TProcess gives you full access to the process. You can kill it,
> pause it, write to stdin, read from stdout.
>
> These things cannot be done with RunProcess.
> That's one-shot and wait till it exits.
Another difference simply so others
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> > pause it, write to stdin, read from stdout.
> >
> > These things cannot be done with RunProcess.
> > That's one-shot and wait till it exits.
>
> Another difference simply so others might learn from this discussion
> (like I did).
> If
On 01/27/2017 06:36 AM, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:14 AM, Michael Schnell > wrote:
If destroying an object is not necessary, the class should provide a
dummy Free procedure. So the application programmer always
13 matches
Mail list logo