Creating property to store two values - delphi

Using Delphi 10 I have two values work_start and work_finish of type TTime that I need to read and write from database table so I though to create a property for each one like that
private
fWorkStart: TTime;
function GetWS: TTime;
procedure SetWS(const Value: TTime);
Public
property WorkStart: TTime read GetWS write SetWS;
....
procedure MyClass.SetWS(const Value: TTime);
begin
fWorkStart := value;
mydataset.Edit;
mydataset.FieldByName('work_start').AsDateTime := fWorkStart;
mydataset.Post;
end;
function MyClass.GetWS: TTime;
begin
if mydataset.FieldByName('work_start').IsNull then
fWorkStart := encodetime(6,0,0,0)
else
fWorkStart := mydataset.FieldByName('work_start').AsDateTime;
result := fWorkStart;
end;
WorkFinish property is the same. So is there a way to create one property for both times or my code is fine ?

Craig's answer demonstrates record properties, which means you have a single property that gets set as a unit; you can't set the start and finish times independently. Dawood's answer demonstrates an array property, which allows independent accesses, but imposes cumbersome bracket notation on the consumer. Kobik's comment improves the semantics, but we can do even better using index specifiers.
First, define an enum to represent the two kinds of times:
type
TWorkTime = (wtStart, wtFinish);
Use those values in your property declarations, and provide an extra parameter to your property accessors to represent the index:
private
FWorkTime: :array[TWorkTime] of TTime;
function GetWT(Index: TWorkTime): TTime;
procedure SetWT(Index: TWorkTime; const Value: TTime);
public
property WorkStart: TTime index wsStart read GetWT write SetWT;
property WorkFinish: TTime index wsFinish read GetWT write SetWT;
To reduce the bloat Craig warns about in your accessors, you can define another array with the corresponding fields names, which lets you avoid duplicating code for your different fields:
const
FieldNames: array[TWorkTime] of string = (
'work_start',
'work_finish'
);
function MyClass.GetWT(Index: TWorkTime): TTime;
begin
if mydataset.FieldByName(FieldName[Index]).IsNull then
FWorkTime[Index] := EncodeTime(6, 0, 0, 0)
else
FWorkTime[Index] := mydataset.FieldByName(FieldNames[Index]).AsDateTime;
Result := FWorkTime[Index];
end;

It is possible:
//Define a record to hold both
type
TTimeRange = record
StartTime: TTime;
EndTime: TTime;
end;
//And have your property use the record
property WorkHours: TTimeRange read GetWorkHours write SetWorkHours;
However, this would force clients of your class to interact using the record structure. Basically the complications you'd encounter outweigh the small benefit you'd gain.
So I don't recommend it.
(Although it's worth remembering the technique because in other scenarios it may prove more useful.)
As for your code:
Handling of properties is fine. Although in the code you've presented fWorkStart is redundant.
I'd caution against Edit and Post within your property writer. Apart from the fact that updating 1 field at a time in the Db would be highly inefficient, your method has unexpected side-effects. (And can you always assume edit is the right choice and not insert?)
In your property reader, assuming NULL == 6:00 is not a good idea. NULL has very specific meaning that the value is unknown/unassigned. Defaulting it in the wrong place leads to being unable to tell the difference between 6:00 and NULL. (I'm not saying never default a null; just understand the implications.)

yes you can use indexed properties
property WorkTime[IsStart: Boolean]: TDataTime read GetWorkTime write SetWorkTime;
procedure MyClass.SetWorkTime(IsStart: Boolean;const value: TDataTime);
begin
mydataset.Edit;
if IsStart then
mydataset.FieldByName('work_start').AsDateTime := value else
mydataset.FieldByName('work_Finish').AsDateTime := value;
mydataset.Post;
end;
function MyClass.GetWorkTime(IsStart: Boolean): TTime;
begin
if IsStart then
Begin
if mydataset.FieldByName('work_start').IsNull then
fWorkStart := encodetime(6,0,0,0)
else
fWorkStart := mydataset.FieldByName('work_start').AsDateTime;
result := fWorkStart;
end else
begin
if mydataset.FieldByName('work_finish').IsNull then
fWorkfinish := encodetime(6,0,0,0)
else
fWorkfinish := mydataset.FieldByName('work_finish').AsDateTime;
result := fWorkfinish;
end
end;

Related

Delphi - Getting property values with GetPropValue()

I'm using Delphi's GetPropValue() function to get values ​​of certain properties of some objects of type TControl. Everything works correctly when I get simple property values ​​such as Value, Opacity, etc, but as I'm using firemonkey there are some extended properties, such as RotationCenter, it has RotationCenter.X and RotationCenter.Y, or even properties of text within TextSettings, in these properties with sub-types I can not get the values.
In this example I get the values ​​correctly:
If IsPublishedProp (Component_cc, 'Value') then
EditValue.Text: = GetPropValue (Component_cc, 'Value', true);
Where Component_cc:TControl; And is created dynamically, it can also be any type of Firemonkey component (so far everything is okay, everything works).
When I need to use the form below, it does not work.
If IsPublishedProp (Component_cc, 'RotationCenter.X') then
EditRotationCenterX.Text: = GetPropValue (CC_component, 'RotationCenter.X', true);
Does anyone know a way to get these properties extended by this function?
First, the CC_component's RotationCenter property is actually an instance of TPosition class which decends from TPersistent.
Second, you cannot use dotted notation when calling IsPublishedProp.
You can use GetObjectProp to first retrieve the internal TPosition instance and then access the X property from there:
(Assume a simple FMX application with one form that contains a TButton called Button1 and a TEdit called EditRotationCenterX.)
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
var
CC_component : TComponent;
CC_component_RotationCenter : TPosition;
begin
CC_component := Button1;
if IsPublishedProp(CC_component, 'RotationCenter') then
begin
CC_component_RotationCenter := TPosition(GetObjectProp(CC_component, 'RotationCenter'));
EditRotationCenterX.Text := CC_component_RotationCenter.X.ToString;
end
end;
Update, for a property of type Set:
For a Set type property, you will need to retrieve its ordinal value using GetOrdProp. This will be the array of bits that represent which elements are included in the current value. Then, you simply test if the appropriate bit is set. This is the method I would prefer.
Alternatively you can use GetSetProp which will return a text representation of the elements in the Set's current value. For example, if the Set's value is [TCorner.BottonLeft, TCorner.TopRight] the you will get back the string value "TopRight,BottonLeft". You then check to see if the name of your target element appears anywhere in the returned string. This method is susceptible to failure if the Delphi RTL or FMX libraries are ever changed in the future.
(This example adds a TRectangle shape called Rectangle1 and a TCheckBox called cbCornerBottonRight to the simple FMX App from above:)
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
var
CC_component : TComponent;
CC_component_Corners : nativeint;
CC_component_CornersAsString : string;
begin
CC_component := Rectangle1;
if IsPublishedProp(CC_component, 'Corners') then
begin
// Using this method will make your code less sensitive to
// changes in the ordinal values of the Set's members or
// changes to names of the enumeration elements.
//
CC_component_Corners := GetOrdProp(CC_component,'Corners');
cbCornerBottonRight.IsChecked := ((1 shl ord(TCorner.BottomRight)) and CC_component_Corners) <> 0;
// This approach may break if the names of the elements of
// the TCorner enumeration are ever changed. (BTW, they have
// been in the past: "cvTopLeft", "cvTopRight", "cvBottomLeft",
// and "cvBottomRight" are now deprecated)
//
CC_component_CornersAsString := GetSetProp(CC_component,'Corners');
cbCornerBottonRight.IsChecked := CC_component_CornersAsString.IndexOf('BottomRight') >= 0;
end;
end;
When speaking about the old RTTI, you can do this. You need to go deeper in the structure. Ask for the X property the TPosition object:
var
O: TObject;
X: Integer;
begin
if PropIsType(Component_cc, 'RotationCenter', tkClass) then
begin
O := GetObjectProp(Component_cc, 'RotationCenter');
if Assigned(O) and PropIsType(O, 'X', tkInteger) then
X := GetOrdProp(O, 'X');
end;
end;

Writing a generic TList of records

I am trying to write a generic TList that contains records of a specific type. Starting from David's answer on this question, I have written this class:
Type
TMERecordList<T> = Class(TList<T>)
Public Type
P = ^T;
Private
Function GetItem(Index: Integer): P;
Public
Procedure Assign(Source: TMERecordList<T>); Virtual;
Function First: P; Inline;
Function Last: P; Inline;
Property Items[Index: Integer]: P Read GetItem;
End;
Procedure TMERecordList<T>.Assign(Source: TMERecordList<T>);
Var
SrcItem: T;
Begin
Clear;
For SrcItem In Source Do
Add(SrcItem);
End;
Function TMERecordList<T>.First: P;
Begin
Result := Items[0];
End;
Function TMERecordList<T>.GetItem(Index: Integer): P;
Begin
If (Index < 0) Or (Index >= Count) Then
Raise EArgumentOutOfRangeException.CreateRes(#SArgumentOutOfRange);
Result := #List[Index];
End;
Function TMERecordList<T>.Last: P;
Begin
Result := Items[Count - 1];
End;
Having methods that return a pointer to the record works well (not perfectly) as pointers to records can be used as if they were records in most use cases. Using a record with properties and setters, these test cases work as expected:
TMETestRecord = Record
Private
FID: Word;
FText: String;
FValues: TIntegers;
Procedure SetID(Const Value: Word);
Procedure SetText(Const Value: String);
Procedure SetValues(Const Value: TIntegers);
Public
Property ID: Word Read FID Write SetID;
Property Text: String Read FText Write SetText;
Property Values: TIntegers Read FValues Write SetValues;
End;
// TestSetItem1
rl2[0] := rl1[0];
// TestSetItem2
r.ID := 9;
r.Text := 'XXXX';
r.Values := [9, 99, 999, 9999];
rl1[0] := r;
// TestAssignEmpty (rl0 is empty... after assign so should rl2)
rl2.Assign(rl0);
// TestAssignDeepCopies (modifications after assign should not affect both records)
rl2.Assign(rl1);
r.ID := 9;
r.Text := 'XXXX';
r.Values := [9, 99, 999, 9999];
rl1[0] := r;
Problem 1 - modifying a contained record
... this test case compiles and runs but does not work as desired:
// TestSetItemFields
rl1[0].ID := 9;
rl1[0].Text := 'XXXX';
rl1[0].Values := [9, 99, 999, 9999];
Modifications are applied to temporary copy of the record and not to the one stored in the list. I know this is a known and expected behaviour, as documented in other questions.
But... is there a way around it? I was thinking that maybe if the TMERecordList<>.Items property had a setter the compiler could maybe do what is actually desired. Could it? I know David has got a solution, as hinted at in this question... but I can't seem to find it on my own.
This would really be nice to have, as it would allow me to have a way of using the list identical (or almost) to that of a TList of objects. Having the same interface means I could easily change from objects to records and viceversa, when the need arises.
Problem 2 - interface ambiguity
Having the TList<> return a record pointer does pose some interface ambiguity problems. Some TList<> methods accept T parameters, and we know that being records, these are going to be passed by value. So what should these methods do? Should I rethink them? I'm talking specifically about these sets of methods:
Remove and RemoveItem
Extract and ExtractItem
Contains IndexOf, IndexOfItem and LastIndexOf
There is some ambiguity as to how these should test contained items to see if they match the parameter record value. The list could very well contain identical records and this could become a source of bugs in user code.
I tried not deriving it from TList<>, so as not to have these methods, but it was a mess. I couldn't write a class similar to TList without also writing my own TListHelper. Unfortunately System.Generics.Collections's one has some needed fields that are private, like FCount, and cannot be used outside the unit.
Problem 1
Your Items property is not marked as being default. Hence your erroneous code is picking up the base class default property. Add the default keyword to your Items property:
property Items[Index: Integer]: P read GetItem; default;
Problem 2
This is really a consequence of deriving from TList<T>. I would not recommend doing that. Encapsulate an instance of TList<T> and therefore define the interface explicitly rather than inheriting it. Or implement the list functionality directly in your code. After all, it's not much more than a wrapper around a dynamic array.
For what it is worth my classes don't use TList<T> at all which is a decision that I was very happy with when Emba broke the class in a recent release.
In the recent versions TList<T> in System.Generics.Collections contains a List property that gives you direct access to the backing array of the list. You can use that to manipulate the records inside the list.

How to properly free records that contain various types in Delphi at once?

type
TSomeRecord = Record
field1: integer;
field2: string;
field3: boolean;
End;
var
SomeRecord: TSomeRecord;
SomeRecAr: array of TSomeRecord;
This is the most basic example of what I have and since I want to reuse SomeRecord (with certain fields remaining empty, without freeing everything some fields would be carried over when I'm reusing SomeRecord, which is obviously undesired) I am looking for a way to free all of the fields at once. I've started out with string[255] and used ZeroMemory(), which was fine until it started leaking memory, that was because I switched to string. I still lack the knowledge to get why, but it appears to be related to it being dynamic. I am using dynamic arrays as well, so I assume that trying ZeroMemory() on anything dynamic would result in leaks. One day wasted figuring that out. I think I solved this by using Finalize() on SomeRecord or SomeRecAr before ZeroMemory(), but I'm not sure if this is the proper approach or just me being stupid.
So the question is: how to free everything at once? does some single procedure exist at all for this that I'm not aware of?
On a different note, alternatively I would be open to suggestions how to implement these records differently to begin with, so I don't need to make complicated attempts at freeing stuff. I've looked into creating records with New() and then getting rid of it Dispose(), but I have no idea what it means when a variable after a call to Dispose() is undefined, instead of nil. In addition, I don't know what's the difference between a variable of a certain type (SomeRecord: TSomeRecord) versus a variable pointing to a type (SomeRecord: ^TSomeRecord). I'm looking into the above issues at the moment, unless someone can explain it quickly, it might take some time.
Assuming you have a Delphi version that supports implementing methods on a record, you could clear a record like this:
type
TSomeRecord = record
field1: integer;
field2: string;
field3: boolean;
procedure Clear;
end;
procedure TSomeRecord.Clear;
begin
Self := Default(TSomeRecord);
end;
If your compiler doesn't support Default then you can do the same quite simply like this:
procedure TSomeRecord.Clear;
const
Default: TSomeRecord=();
begin
Self := Default;
end;
You might prefer to avoid mutating a value type in a method. In which case create a function that returns an empty record value, and use it with the assignment operator:
type
TSomeRecord = record
// fields go here
class function Empty: TSomeRecord; static;
end;
class function TSomeRecord.Empty: TSomeRecord;
begin
Result := Default(TSomeRecord);
end;
....
Value := TSomeRecord.Empty;
As an aside, I cannot find any documentation reference for Default(TypeIdentifier). Does anyone know where it can be found?
As for the second part of your question, I see no reason not to continue using records, and allocating them using dynamic arrays. Attempting to manage the lifetime yourself is much more error prone.
Don't make thinks overcomplicated!
Assigning a "default" record is just a loss of CPU power and memory.
When a record is declared within a TClass, it is filled with zero, so initialized. When it is allocated on stack, only reference counted variables are initialized: others kind of variable (like integer or double or booleans or enumerations) are in a random state (probably non zero). When it will be allocated on the heap, getmem will not initialize anything, allocmem will fill all content with zero, and new will initialize only reference-counted members (like on the stack initialization): in all cases, you should use either dispose, either finalize+freemem to release a heap-allocated record.
So about your exact question, your own assumption was right: to reset a record content after use, never use "fillchar" (or "zeromemory") without a previous "finalize". Here is the correct and fastest way:
Finalize(aRecord);
FillChar(aRecord,sizeof(aRecord),0);
Once again, it will be faster than assigning a default record. And in all case, if you use Finalize, even multiple times, it won't leak any memory - 100% money back warranty!
Edit: After looking at the code generated by aRecord := default(TRecordType), the code is well optimized: it is in fact a Finalize + bunch of stosd to emulate FillChar. So even if the syntax is a copy / assignement (:=), it is not implemented as a copy / assignment. My mistake here.
But I still do not like the fact that a := has to be used, where Embarcadero should have better used a record method like aRecord.Clear as syntax, just like DelphiWebScript's dynamic arrays. In fact, this := syntax is the same exact used by C#. Sounds like if Embacardero just mimics the C# syntax everywhere, without finding out that this is weird. What is the point if Delphi is just a follower, and not implement thinks "its way"? People will always prefer the original C# to its ancestor (Delphi has the same father).
The most simply solution I think of will be:
const
EmptySomeRecord: TSomeRecord = ();
begin
SomeRecord := EmptySomeRecord;
But to address all the remaining parts of your question, take these definitions:
type
PSomeRecord = ^TSomeRecord;
TSomeRecord = record
Field1: Integer;
Field2: String;
Field3: Boolean;
end;
TSomeRecords = array of TSomeRecord;
PSomeRecordList = ^TSomeRecordList;
TSomeRecordList = array[0..MaxListSize] of TSomeRecord;
const
EmptySomeRecord: TSomeRecord = ();
Count = 10;
var
SomeRecord: TSomeRecord;
SomeRecords: TSomeRecords;
I: Integer;
P: PSomeRecord;
List: PSomeRecordList;
procedure ClearSomeRecord(var ASomeRecord: TSomeRecord);
begin
ASomeRecord.Field1 := 0;
ASomeRecord.Field2 := '';
ASomeRecord.Field3 := False;
end;
function NewSomeRecord: PSomeRecord;
begin
New(Result);
Result^.Field1 := 0;
Result^.Field2 := '';
Result^.Field3 := False;
end;
And then here some multiple examples on how to operate on them:
begin
// Clearing a typed variable (1):
SomeRecord := EmptySomeRecord;
// Clearing a typed variable (2):
ClearSomeRecord(SomeRecord);
// Initializing and clearing a typed array variabele:
SetLength(SomeRecords, Count);
// Creating a pointer variable:
New(P);
// Clearing a pointer variable:
P^.Field1 := 0;
P^.Field2 := '';
P^.Field3 := False;
// Creating and clearing a pointer variable:
P := NewSomeRecord;
// Releasing a pointer variable:
Dispose(P);
// Creating a pointer array variable:
ReallocMem(List, Count * SizeOf(TSomeRecord));
// Clearing a pointer array variable:
for I := 0 to Count - 1 do
begin
Pointer(List^[I].Field2) := nil;
List^[I].Field1 := 0;
List^[I].Field2 := '';
List^[I].Field3 := False;
end;
// Releasing a pointer array variable:
Finalize(List^[0], Count);
Choose and/or combine as you like.
With SomeRecord: TSomeRecord, SomeRecord will be an instance/variable of type TSomeRecord. With SomeRecord: ^TSomeRecord, SomeRecord will be a pointer to a instance or variable of type TSomeRecord. In the last case, SomeRecord will be a typed pointer. If your application transfer a lot of data between routines or interact with external API, typed pointer are recommended.
new() and dispose() are only used with typed pointers. With typed pointers the compiler doesn't have control/knowlegde of the memory your application is using with this kind of vars. It's up to you to free the memory used by typed pointers.
In the other hand, when you use a normal variables, depending on the use and declaration, the compiler will free memory used by them when it considers they are not necessary anymore. For example:
function SomeStaff();
var
NativeVariable: TSomeRecord;
TypedPointer: ^TSomeRecord;
begin
NaviveVariable.Field1 := 'Hello World';
// With typed pointers, we need to manually
// create the variable before we can use it.
new(TypedPointer);
TypedPointer^.Field1 := 'Hello Word';
// Do your stuff here ...
// ... at end, we need to manually "free"
// the typed pointer variable. Field1 within
// TSomerecord is also released
Dispose(TypedPointer);
// You don't need to do the above for NativeVariable
// as the compiler will free it after this function
// ends. This apply also for native arrays of TSomeRecord.
end;
In the above example, the variable NativeVariable is only used within the SomeStaff function, so the compiler automatically free it when the function ends. This appy for almost most native variables, including arrays and records "fields". Objects are treated differently, but that's for another post.

Delphi getting value of form components properties

I am implementing a Boilerplate feature - allow users to Change descriptions of some components - like TLabels - at run time.
e.g.
TFooClass = Class ( TBaseClass)
Label : Tlabel;
...
End;
Var FooClass : TFooClass;
...
At design time, the value Label's caption property is say - 'First Name', when the
application is run, there is a feature that allows the user to change the caption
value to say 'Other Name'. Once this is changed, the caption for the label for
the class instance of FooClass is updated immediately.
The problem now is if the user for whatever reason wants to revert back to the design
time value of say 'First Name' , it seems impossible.
I can use the RTTIContext methods and all that but I at the end of the day, it seems
to require the instance of the class for me to change the value and since this
has already being changed - I seem to to have hit a brick wall getting around it.
My question is this - is there a way using the old RTTI methods or the new RTTIContext
stuff to the property of a class' member without instantiating the class - i.e. getting
the property from the ClassType definition.
This is code snippet of my attempt at doing that :
c : TRttiContext;
z : TRttiInstanceType;
w : TRttiProperty;
Aform : Tform;
....
Begin
.....
Aform := Tform(FooClass);
for vCount := 0 to AForm.ComponentCount-1 do begin
vDummyComponent := AForm.Components[vCount];
if IsPublishedProp(vDummyComponent,'Caption') then begin
c := TRttiContext.Create;
try
z := (c.GetType(vDummyComponent.ClassInfo) as TRttiInstanceType);
w := z.GetProperty('Caption');
if w <> nil then
Values[vOffset, 1] := w.GetValue(vDummyComponent.ClassType).AsString
.....
.....
....
....
I am getting all sorts of errors and any help will be greatly appreciated.
The RTTI System does not provide what you are after. Type information is currently only determined at compile time. Initial form values are set at Runtime using the DFM resource. You can change values in a DFM Resource in a compiled application because it's evaluated at runtime.
Parse and use the DFM Resource where it is stored, or make a copy of the original value at runtime. Possibly at the point of initial change to reduce your memory footprint.
Masons Suggestion of using TDictionary<string, TValue> is what I would use. I would be careful of storing this information in a database as keeping it in sync could become a real maintenance nightmare.
Sounds like what you're trying to do is get the value of a certain property as defined in the DFM. This can't be done using RTTI, since RTTI is based on inspecting the structure of an object as specified by its class definition. The DFM isn't part of the class definition; it's a property list that gets applied to the objects after they've been created from the class definitions.
If you want to get the values of the properties of a form's controls, you'll probably have to cache them somewhere. Try putting something in the form's OnCreate that runs through all the controls and uses RTTI to populate a TDictionary<string, TValue> with the values of all the properties. Then you can look them up later on when you need them.
If what you are trying to achieve it to restore the value that was set at design-time (i.e. that one that is saved in the DFM), I'd use InitInheritedComponent as a starting point.
It's possible to get the content of the DFM at runtime. Could be a pain to parse though.
Check also InternalReadComponentRes.
Both routine can be found in the classes unit.
Well - I solved the problem. The trick is basically instantiating another instance of the form like so :
procedure ShowBoilerPlate(AForm : TForm; ASaveAllowed : Boolean);
var
vCount : Integer;
vDesignTimeForm : TForm;
vDesignTimeComp : TComponent;
vDesignTimeValue : String;
vCurrentValue : String;
begin
....
....
vDesignTimeForm := TFormClass(FindClass(AForm.ClassName)).Create(AForm.Owner);
try
// Now I have two instances of the form - I also need to have at least one
// overloaded constructor defined for the base class of the forms that will allow for
// boilerplating. If you call the default Constructor - no boilerplating
// is done. If you call the overloaded constructor, then, boilerplating is done.
// Bottom line, I can have two instances AForm - with boilerplated values and
// vDesignForm without boilerplated values.
for vCount := 0 to AForm.ComponentCount-1 do begin
vDummyComponent := AForm.Components[vCount];
if Supports (vDummyComponent,IdoGUIMetaData,iGetGUICaption) then begin
RecordCount := RecordCount + 1;
Values[vOffset, 0] := vDummyComponent.Name;
if IsPublishedProp(vDummyComponent,'Caption') then begin
vDesignTimeComp := vDesignTimeForm.FindComponent(vDummyComponent.Name);
if vDesignTimeComp <> nil then begin
// get Design time values here
vDesignTimeValue := GetPropValue(vDesignTimeComp,'Caption');
end;
// get current boilerplated value here
vCurrentValue := GetPropValue(vDummyComponent,'Caption');
end;
vOffset := RecordCount;;
end;
end;
finally
FreeAndNil(vDesignTimeForm);
end;
end;
Anyway - thank you all for all your advice.

Delphi 2010: New RTTI, setting propertyvalue to arbitary value

TRTTIProperty.SetValue( ) takes an TValue instance, but if the provided TValue instance is based on a different type then the property, things blow up.
E.g.
TMyObject = class
published
property StringValue: string read FStringValue write FStringValue;
end;
procedure SetProperty(obj: TMyObject);
var
context: TRTTIContext;
rtti: TRTTIType;
prop: TRTTIProperty;
value: TValue;
begin
context := TRTTIContext.Create;
rtti := context.GetType(TMyObject);
prop := rtti.GetProperty('StringValue');
value := 1000;
prop.SetValue(obj, value);
end;
Trying to cast the value to a string wont work either.
prop.SetValue(obj, value.AsString);
prop.SetValue(obj, value.Cast(prop.PropertyType.Handle));
Any ideas on how solve this?
UPDATE:
Some of you wonder why I want to assign an integer to an string, and I will try to explain.
(Actually, it's more likely that I want to assign a string to an integer, but that's not that relevant...)
What I'm trying to accomplish, is to make a general 'middle-man' between gui and model. I want to somehow hook a textedit field to an property. Instead of making such an middle man for each model that I have, I hoped that the new RTTI/TValue thing would work some magic for me.
I'm also new to generics, so I'm not sure how generics could have helped. Is it possible to instantiate a generic at runtime with a dynamically decided type, or do the compile need to know?
E.g.
TMyGeneric<T> = class
end;
procedure DoSomething( );
begin
prop := rtti.getProperty('StringValue');
mygen := TMyGeneric<prop.PropertyType>.Create;
//or
mygen := TMyGeneric<someModel.Class>.Create;
end;
Maybe the age of magic has yet to come... I guess I can manage with a couple of big case structures...
TValue is not a Variant. You can only read the datatype that "you" put into it.
TValue.Cast doesn't work because it has the same semantic that implicit type casts have. You cannot assign an integer to a string or vice versa. But you can assign an integer to a float, or you can assign an integer to a int64.
Can't try it right now, but I would have written:
value := '1000';
prop.SetValue(obj, value);
try
prop.SetValue(obj, value.ToString)
But for me it is same question as for François. Why you want to set the property with a value of the wrong datatype?

Resources