David Heffernan

Will it compile if you restore the constraint but specify the generic type explicitly instead of relying of type inference?

This is just not true.

Security is not a property of the language. It's a property of the code. And the code is written by programmers. They determine how secure a piece of code is, not the choice of language. Hard to see how that brings security.

Yes.

If you don't have a performance bottleneck, make sure that you use a version of the code that is easy to read and maintain.

Do you have a performance bottleneck with this code?

You can get help in the community version I believe. But in any case it's all online.

There is no buzz. Where are all the new developers?

I'm less convinced that is so.

The problem with that is the the problems tend to interact with each other.

The point of the book is that adding programmers won't necessarily result in a better output.

It's far from that simple. I take it that everybody has read this:

I can't reconcile these two statements.

That something may be done in the RTL/VCL doesn't mean it is good practise.

Nothing can save you at this point.

OK, Scaled = False does change things.

Destructors must not raise exceptions. My personal view is that if they do then the best course of action is to terminate the process.

If you remove PixelsPerInch from the DFM then you'll find that your form layouts break different devs modify forms if their machines use different font scaling (i.e. DPI) settings. In my workplace we handle this by requiring all modifications of forms to be made using a common font scaling setting.

In the OP you also write an implementation for each different type. So where is the saving?

It's not double the work.

I would absolutely not want syntax like that. If that's the way you want to go you can do it today with generics. In an ideal world I'd like to see the generality offered by C++ templates though. That would allow algorithmic programming that is just too painful with generics.

You mean with the code from OP?

This seems worse than method overloading to me. There you have compile time branching. Here you have to perform runtime type checking.

Rethinking Delphi Floating Point Control Register Management.pdf

I don't think so. You want to be able to define a default FPCR for new threads, so just making those vars threadvars doesn't achieve that. But in any case, why have threadvars for something that is already part of the thread context? That makes no sense to me.