Thorsten Engler wrote:
Apart from the custom attributes and the Invoke, I don't see
what there is extra ?
No usable RTTI for records
No usable RTTI for arrays
No RTTI for private, protected and public(!) members (only published)
No usable RTTI for published methods (param and return types are j
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Vincent Snijders wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt schreef:
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Vincent Snijders wrote:
> >
> > > Michael Van Canneyt schreef:
> > > > > The current fpc solution is that you need to register classes with
> > > > > test
> > > > > methods. This is an extr
Michael Van Canneyt schreef:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Vincent Snijders wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt schreef:
The current fpc solution is that you need to register classes with test
methods. This is an extra action.
You must type the 'TestFixture' attribute also, so no extras here.
Really...
I kno
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Vincent Snijders wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt schreef:
> > > The current fpc solution is that you need to register classes with test
> > > methods. This is an extra action.
> >
> > You must type the 'TestFixture' attribute also, so no extras here.
> > Really...
>
> I know
Michael Van Canneyt schreef:
The current fpc solution is that you need to register classes with test
methods. This is an extra action.
You must type the 'TestFixture' attribute also, so no extras here.
Really...
I know what is easier to write: textfixture at the class declaration or some
reg
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Vincent Snijders wrote:
> Micha Nelissen schreef:
> > Thorsten Engler wrote:
> > > Take a look here to get some idea about the uses for attributes in just
> > > the
> > > core framework: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2e39z096.aspx
> >
> > What? Most sounds like p
Micha Nelissen schreef:
Thorsten Engler wrote:
Take a look here to get some idea about the uses for attributes in
just the
core framework: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2e39z096.aspx
What? Most sounds like poor hacks to get around compiler/linker
limitations.
Perhaps there ar
I also think you don't recognize sarcasm/scepticism
when you encounter it.
IMHO, sarcasm should not be used in a forum, especially if non native
language members are to be considered. They are easily fooled involuntarily.
-Michael
___
fpc-devel mai
Sorry, I don't understand anything of this.
(I did not see any use for interfaces in my work yet, either.)
This seems to be a completely different world from mine (as a programmer
for mainly "embedded" projects).
I once used variants for a project that accessed a database.
-Michael
_
Op Tue, 20 Nov 2007, schreef Marco van de Voort:
> > Op Tue, 20 Nov 2007, schreef Marco van de Voort:
> > > > calling convention)
> > > > No usable type information for published fields (only a name to offset
> > > > mapping is given, no type information at all)
> > > > And so on...
> > >
> > >
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Thorsten Engler wrote:
> > Private and protected are not your business in the first
> > place, exposing it through RTTI or whatever is bad design. Public, OK.
>
> The class itself should have access to that information. It can then use it
> to e.g. stream the contents of a
> I used RTTI to avoid defining an additional constant array of
> strings to have a unit output debug information for
> enumerated types. Otherwise I never did see any use of this.
>
> Could you give a real world example ?
Do you want a real world example for what better RTTI in general is us
Thorsten Engler wrote:
Take a look here to get some idea about the uses for attributes in just the
core framework: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2e39z096.aspx
What? Most sounds like poor hacks to get around compiler/linker limitations.
Microsoft.VisualC.DebugInfoInPDBAttribute: An
> Private and protected are not your business in the first
> place, exposing it through RTTI or whatever is bad design. Public, OK.
The class itself should have access to that information. It can then use it
to e.g. stream the contents of all/some of it's private fields to/from a
stream.
> > No
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Thorsten Engler wrote:
> > Easy: look up the method in RTTI - you'll get the address.
> > Push all arguments on the stack (see Remobjects/Innerfuse
> > PascalScript on how to do this, you need some assembler for
> > it), and return result value.
> >
> > 2 days, tops.
>
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Thorsten Engler wrote:
> > Apart from the custom attributes and the Invoke, I don't see
> > what there is extra ?
>
> No usable RTTI for records
> No usable RTTI for arrays
Granted.
> No RTTI for private, protected and public(!) members (only published)
Private and prot
> Op Tue, 20 Nov 2007, schreef Marco van de Voort:
> > > calling convention)
> > > No usable type information for published fields (only a name to offset
> > > mapping is given, no type information at all)
> > > And so on...
> >
> > Note that all this can be remedied (and better) by a simple code
Thorsten Engler wrote:
Apart from the custom attributes and the Invoke, I don't see
what there is extra ?
No usable RTTI for records
No usable RTTI for arrays
No RTTI for private, protected and public(!) members (only published)
No usable RTTI for published methods (param and return types are j
> Easy: look up the method in RTTI - you'll get the address.
> Push all arguments on the stack (see Remobjects/Innerfuse
> PascalScript on how to do this, you need some assembler for
> it), and return result value.
>
> 2 days, tops.
You are funny.
First, the RTTI can only give you the address
Op Tue, 20 Nov 2007, schreef Marco van de Voort:
> > > Apart from the custom attributes and the Invoke, I don't see
> > > what there is extra ?
> >
> > No usable RTTI for records
> > No usable RTTI for arrays
> > No RTTI for private, protected and public(!) members (only published)
> > No usab
On 20 Nov 2007, at 09:41, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Easy: look up the method in RTTI - you'll get the address.
Push all arguments on the stack (see Remobjects/Innerfuse
PascalScript on
how to do this, you need some assembler for it), and return result
value.
And breaks every other FPC re
I can only assume that you simply have no idea about how and for what
Attributes are used.
He's not alone :-) .
I used RTTI to avoid defining an additional constant array of strings to
have a unit output debug information for enumerated types. Otherwise I
never did see any use of this.
Cou
> > Apart from the custom attributes and the Invoke, I don't see
> > what there is extra ?
>
> No usable RTTI for records
> No usable RTTI for arrays
> No RTTI for private, protected and public(!) members (only published)
> No usable RTTI for published methods (param and return types are just giv
> > Apart from the custom attributes and the Invoke, I don't see what
> > there is extra ?
Sorry, forgot: No RTTI whatsoever for pointer types.
Cheers,
Thorsten
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mail
> Apart from the custom attributes and the Invoke, I don't see
> what there is extra ?
No usable RTTI for records
No usable RTTI for arrays
No RTTI for private, protected and public(!) members (only published)
No usable RTTI for published methods (param and return types are just given
as strings,
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On 20/11/2007, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > to write code anyway, so it's no different from custom written code.
> > The only use for this is maybe storing DB persistence information.
> >
>
>
> Ok, maybe I should have made t
On 20/11/2007, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to write code anyway, so it's no different from custom written code.
> The only use for this is maybe storing DB persistence information.
>
Ok, maybe I should have made the context more clear as well. My
primary use for RTTI is in a
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Thorsten Engler wrote:
> > I'm wondering if anybody has sufficient knowledge in this (I don't).
> > Many developers that moved over to the dark side (.NET) using
> > Delphi.Net or C# always rave about .Net Reflection and how
> > much better it is to RTTI.
>
> > Anybody ac
> You forgot to complete: (...) but 99% of time the it just
> makes for useless bloat ;-)
The type information required to make this work is required anyway to a)
support the compilation of IL into machine code b) to allow verification of
type safety and c) support the garbage collector. As such
> (...)
> As far as the information itself that's available through RTTI / Reflection
> is concerned, the type information available in .NET is truly complete, down
> to every field and every method of every type. Also, the ability to
> associate any number of custom attributes with any of the enti
> I'm wondering if anybody has sufficient knowledge in this (I don't).
> Many developers that moved over to the dark side (.NET) using
> Delphi.Net or C# always rave about .Net Reflection and how
> much better it is to RTTI.
> Anybody actually know what is better? What limits are they
> talkin
31 matches
Mail list logo
