Bernd Kreuss schrieb:
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.
Often it is not desired, or even not possible, to describe a commonly
used data structure with properly typed members (cyclic unit
references!). That's when even in Pascal untyped pointers or handles
have to be passed around, which have a specific meaning only in specific
parts of the code.
DoDi
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
