On 08.07.2012 17:18, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: > IMO all these members should be pointers, of size 64 bit according to > the index increment (8 bytes?).
You are right, I didn't look carefully enough. Too much ad-hoc pointer arithmetics and dereferencing around too many corners within the same expression. Thats exactly the reason why I believe that defining types that describe the data (especially the more complex and not so obvious structures) *before* actually starting to write code that operates on it is better than the other way around. IMHO this particular piece of C code is ugly in more than only one regard. Even in C this could have been written cleaner and easier to read. Bernd -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
