Lars Fosdal

Which means lists and arrays of objects may be preferable over lists and arrays of records in certain situations.

So, looping an array of records using for v in array, can be significantly more expensive than indexed access using for vx := Low(array) to High(array), given the size of the record?

It is good practice to pull / update, CHECK AND COMPILE before push / commit. I agree with Dalija and Anders that if there are unintended cosmetic changes in a commit (explicit form coordinates / white space), it is good practice to discard the changes before the commit. That really simplifies looking for actual changes in the version history later. And - for the love of developer team sanity - write proper push / commit statements 😛 Edit: To clarify - comment the scope and purpose of the changes. If there are caveats, they should be comments in the code, not in the commit.

Isn't single characters in the #128-#255 range invalid in UTF8, if not prefixed to form a sequence? Are there per definition, UTF8 sequences that are invalid?

http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/Sydney/en/Declarations_and_Statements_(Delphi)#For_Statements For to rules are pretty clear: For in rules are a bit general: I am not sure how this would be a problem if we are talking about a loop over a list of objects, as we then would be passing a reference to the list object? I have not really thought about how the variable of a for in loop over an array of records is kept. Do we see a deep copy of the array element in the loop variable, or is there pointer magic involved? I can see how this could be a problem if the reference passed is to a local stack copy.

@Carlo Barazzetta, This looks awesome, but I found a bug and identified the cause. https://github.com/EtheaDev/SVGIconImageList/issues/119 Luckily it was possible to work around the bug by removing the offending section.

ROFL!

https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-31084

program SydnetExceptionsReRaise; {$APPTYPE CONSOLE} uses System.SysUtils; function LogExceptionFunc(const E: Exception): string; begin Result := E.Message; Writeln('Func Log + ' + E.Message); end; procedure LogExceptionProc(const E: Exception); begin Writeln('Proc Log + ' + E.Message); end; procedure Test1_OK; begin try try raise Exception.Create('This is a raised Exception'); except on E: Exception do begin LogExceptionProc(E); raise; end; end; except on E: Exception do begin Writeln('Test 1 ', E.ClassName, ': ', E.Message); end; end; end; procedure Test2_OK; var lMessage: string; begin try try raise Exception.Create('This is a raised Exception'); except on E: Exception do begin lMessage := LogExceptionFunc(E); raise; end; end; except on E: Exception do begin Writeln('Test 2 ', E.ClassName, ': ', E.Message); end; end; end; procedure Test3_Fail; begin try try raise Exception.Create('This is a raised Exception'); except on E: Exception do begin LogExceptionFunc(E); raise; end; end; except on E: Exception do begin Writeln('Test 3 ', E.ClassName, ': ', E.Message); end; end; end; begin try try Test1_OK; Test2_OK; Test3_Fail; except on E: Exception do begin Writeln('Unexpected ',E.ClassName, ': ', E.Message); end; end; finally Write('Press Any Key'); ReadLn; end; end. Here you go. No joke.

If you expand it with the examples that actually works - it would be sufficient for a QP, IMO.

Interestingly, the two following changes eliminates the AV on raise. Either, change LogException to a procedure procedure LogException(const E: Exception); begin Writeln('Log + ' + E.Message); //Logging('Blah blah' + Result, 'Exceptions'); FYI end; or assign the result to a variable: on E: Exception do begin lMessage := LogException(E); // AV in Sydney, OK i Berlin // LogExceptionEx(E, lMessage); // OK raise; end; It does look like a compiler problem. Is there a QP report?

Clearly, it is based on jokes alone.

I guess injecting a deprecated statement for the old class could be an option - or is that too brutal.

@Jim McKeeth should kick some shins to have a new roadmap produced.

if WinApi.Windows.IsIconic(Application.MainForm.Handle) then begin // Log something end; https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/win32/api/winuser/nf-winuser-isiconic?redirectedfrom=MSDN

I can't remember why not - prolly because Numlock was the first to spring to mind. Anyways, I've been using this for years now, and never experienced any adverse side effects.

Have any of you seen something similar to this? Delphi 10.3.3

Well, it sort of forced my hand in switching to 10.4.1 a little ahead of time. Going live on new version to day. Oh, such fun to reconfigure all the build scripts 😛

Sounds like an excellent suggestion!

Much annoying. Very bug. 😛 https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-30576

Doh! Ref. https://blogs.embarcadero.com/ide-plugins-in-rad-studio-10-4-1/ The solution was to use GetIt to uninstall 1.6.1 and install 1.6.2.

There is an extra fee for solving homework problems, isn't there?

Thread split off from if Data.TryGetValue(aId, vNewData) then vNewData.DataName := aName; else begin vNewData := TDataRec.Create; vNewData.DataId := aId; vNewData.DataName := aName; Data.Add(aId, vNewData); end; @Stefan Glienke - What is the best container for random lookup access for records?

Indexing and doing index maintenance is crucial to maintain performance. If the queries can be done completely free form, that will be a challenge. IMO, there are few settings to FireDAC that really affects the performance once the query has been passed to the server.

In my experience, it is far easier to use classes when you need to modify contents. I wish it weren't so, and it can be worked around - but then usually with pointer references, and at that point (pun intended), I might as well be doing objects and maintain type safety and support polymorphism.