W dniu 2010-01-19 19:00, Daniël Mantione pisze:
Op Tue, 19 Jan 2010, schreef Dariusz Mazur:
Is this possible to forbid this at compile time?
An easy solution is to wrap it inside a record. This is good practise
as it prevents accidental bugs like accidentally writing parameters in
the wro
Op Tue, 19 Jan 2010, schreef Dariusz Mazur:
Is this possible to forbid this at compile time?
An easy solution is to wrap it inside a record. This is good practise as
it prevents accidental bugs like accidentally writing parameters in the
wrong order when calling a procedure. It's basically
W dniu 2010-01-19 13:53, Michael Van Canneyt pisze:
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 19 Jan 2010, schreef Graeme Geldenhuys:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Why should it be better ? It doesn't really matter anyway.
PtrUInt has a larger range than PtrInt (allowing full a
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Daniël Mantione wrote:
Op Tue, 19 Jan 2010, schreef Graeme Geldenhuys:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Why should it be better ? It doesn't really matter anyway.
PtrUInt has a larger range than PtrInt (allowing full access to memory
address range). Plus, I don't think p
Daniël Mantione wrote:
> However, when using pointers as handles it is another matter... Handles
> are not to be used in any calculation, so they cannot overflow. Who cares
> if you get a negative handle?
OK, now it makes sense. Thanks for the clear explanation.
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
fpG
Op Tue, 19 Jan 2010, schreef Graeme Geldenhuys:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Why should it be better ? It doesn't really matter anyway.
PtrUInt has a larger range than PtrInt (allowing full access to memory
address range). Plus, I don't think pointers can be negative values.
The problem oc
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>
> Why should it be better ? It doesn't really matter anyway.
PtrUInt has a larger range than PtrInt (allowing full access to memory
address range). Plus, I don't think pointers can be negative values.
Regards,
- Graeme -
--
fpGUI Toolkit - a cross-platform GUI
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
In the file rtl/unix/dynlibs.inc there is the following definition.
Type
{ using PtrInt here is compliant with the other platforms }
TLibHandle = PtrInt;
Shouldn't that rather be PtrUInt type? After
Hi,
In the file rtl/unix/dynlibs.inc there is the following definition.
Type
{ using PtrInt here is compliant with the other platforms }
TLibHandle = PtrInt;
Shouldn't that rather be PtrUInt type? After all, PtrUInt was recommended
on the wiki.
Regar
