David Heffernan

This class can't be used without the compare type being specified.

This seems bogus. Define "really core" please.

You are advocating defining new classes in order to set a single field in the base class. If you can't see what is wrong with that I am surprised. I already said.

OMG, take a poor idea, and make it much worse

Also a false goal.

That's a false goal. Remove that goal from your life. Following it will be making your code worse.

It works. But better to have one constructor that accepts an argument. Think of the time you need to decide at runtime which path to take. Then your way is hopeless.

Ugh, the code you write shouldn't need those ifdefs. That the entire point of you using the libraries provided by others, like Emba. They present a common interface to you. That's the entire point of cross platform coding.

Spend some time looking at the development process and quality over in C# and .net land, and then see if you honestly can regard Emba's process and quality even remotely in the same ball park.

It's not a choice between either generics, or polymorphism. You can use both.

Because that's the only way to make this work. Your expectations seem unrealistic. As I see it you face two choices: 1. Code it the way I said, and thus have your code work the way you want. 2. Code it your way, and have your code not work the way you want. I don't understand why you want to take option 2.

constructor constraint isn't going to be much use here, you can get rid of it. What you need is a virtual constructor on the base class, and virtual methods. And then obviously to override those methods on subclasses.

We don't really know what your main goal is. Hard to give useful advice.

Define "best" please. Also, the try/finally seems a little pointless.

no

The eternal optimist

Strange suggestions given that all symptoms point to memory leak in your code.

Smells like a memory leak, or perhaps the loss of contiguous address space due to fragmentation from reallocation.

It's very plausible that you have a memory leak. Just because fastmm4 says you don't doesn't mean you don't. It's one thing returning memory when the program closes, another returning it in a timely fashion during execution.

Didn't you read that topic? The entire topic was based on misconception.

No. It's a suggestion that if you want an improvement to an open source project then one option is that you contribute it yourself. ALL-CAPSing the project maintainer is a strategy that in my opinion is sub optimal for your goals.

Why don't you have a go at fixing it, and contributing the fix?

Perhaps you know what this is. We don't. Try to imagine that we can't see your screen.

Isn't this something you set when you create the dictionary? Does the spring4d implementation offer more functionality?

What is your actual problem for which you need a solution? Because what you are asking doesn't actually make sense.