On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Apr 25, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Michael Van Canneyt <mich...@freepascal.org> wrote: No, because it introduces additional complications. We can think of extending the features of objects or advanced records. Your proposal entails a very different model of handling, which matches more how objects and records are currently handled.Isn’t putting a stack based pointer inside the class syntax easiest? Maybe I don’t understand but it seems to be you’re just swapping a pointer around.
It's more than that.
After I had the idea this morning it’s appearing now that is more of optimization like “inline” or “constref" which basically says “this class exists only for this scope” so the compilers knows it can not call GetMem and call the destructor at the end of the scope.
The compiler does not call getmem at all. The constructor does. In fact; it calls a class method of the object which will allocate the necessary memory. There is, in general, no telling what this call will do. Michael.
_______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
