[fpc-devel] "Default" discussion for SmartPointers etc

Jonas Maebe jonas.maebe at elis.ugent.be
Wed Jul 27 16:58:53 CEST 2016

Michael Van Canneyt wrote on Wed, 27 Jul 2016:

> On Wed, 27 Jul 2016, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>> Michael Van Canneyt wrote on Wed, 27 Jul 2016:
>>> Why not introduce an address operator ?
>>> operator @ (T : MyType) : Pointer;
>> It's only needed because Maciej wants the proxy type to behave  
>> differently from all other existing types. The solution is not to  
>> add functionality to make that easier, but to fix the  
>> inconsistencies.
> Then I didn't understand what exactly you think is inconsistent ?

The need for a special behaviour of the "@" operator: to return not  
the address of the proxy object, but the address of the proxied  
object. That is different compared to the behaviour of the @-operator  
on any other type (except for procvars in TP/Delphi-mode, but that is  
an inconsistency we can't do much about).

> Knowing the purpose, what do you think can be done ?

I wrote some ideas in the original email you replied to.


More information about the fpc-devel mailing list