If you like to use a method's pointer as an argument, you need to type the method as function of object like this works good:
type TAcceptor = function(filename:string):boolean of object;
function acceptor(filename:string):boolean;
begin
result := filename <> '';
end;
What if you like to use the pointer of a sub-method? It does not work:
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender:TObject);
function acceptor(filename:string):boolean of object;
begin
result := filename <> '';
end;
begin
end;
The error occour: ; expected but OF found!
Question: Is there any subfunction-pointer? Can i cast it?
I don't see how that this would be possible.
http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/XE6/en/Procedural_Types
If you look under the method pointers section, it specifically says that nested procedures and functions cannot be used:
"Nested procedures and functions (routines declared within other
routines) cannot be used as procedural values, nor can predefined
procedures and functions."
You might be able to work around it using an anonymous method. Something like:
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender:TObject);
begin
DoSomethingWithAcceptor(function(FileName: string): Boolean
begin
Result := FileName <> '';
end);
end;
CAUTION
I know that the following is not universally applicable, but it works for all known Win32 versions of Delphi. As long as you are aware of this, and check its functionality in new versions, it is a viable hack, IMO.
Passing nested functions to methods
In older code, I used this to do some "poor man's anonymous methods":
type
TLocal = packed record
Code: Pointer; // local (nested) function
Frame: Pointer; // outer stack frame for local function
end;
To fill such a local inside a method, I wrote the function Local:
function Local(LocalFunction: Pointer): TLocal;
asm
MOV [EDX].TLocal.Frame,EBP
MOV [EDX].TLocal.Code,EAX
end;
Inside my unit (some kind of generic collection), I wrote a function to call them, passing one parameter (of type TGeneric, in this case, which is not important here, you can also pass a pointer or some such).
// Calls local function using local closure provided, passing
// T as parameter to the local.
function CallLocal(T: TGeneric; const Local: TLocal): TGeneric;
asm
PUSH [EDX].TLocal.Frame
CALL [EDX].TLocal.Code
ADD ESP,4
end;
It was used like this:
function TStdCollection.AsArray: TGenericArray;
var
I: Integer;
A: TGenericArray;
procedure ToArray(E: TGeneric);
begin
Result[I] := E.Traits.Copy(E);
Inc(I);
end;
begin
SetLength(A, Count);
I := 0;
ForEach(Local(#ToArray));
Assert(I = Count);
Result := A;
end;
The code in the nested function makes a copy of the element and stores it in the array. The main procedure then passes the nested function ToArray (together with its stack frame) as parameter to ForEach, which is implemented this way:
function TStdCollection.ForEach(Operation: TLocal): ICollection;
var
Enum: IEnumerator;
Elem: TGeneric;
begin
Enum := GetEnumerator;
Elem := Enum.First;
while Elem <> nil do
begin
CallLocal(Elem, Operation);
Elem := Enum.Next;
end;
Result := Self;
end;
These examples show how to use the Locals. I hope this more or less answers your question.
Note
Note that this code was written in the Delphi 6 timeframe. I know there are better alternatives these days, like generics and anonymous methods. But if compatibility with Delphi 7 is required, the above might be a solution.
Related
In Delphi there is the procedure UniqueString which forces the parameter passed to it to have a reference count of 1. It is usually done to ensure that so it is safe to pass it to a different thread without messing up the reference counting. (*1)
It has always irked me that I have to assign the string to a variable first before I can call this procedure. Is there any reason why it could not be implemented as a function?
Like:
procedure TMyThread.Create(const _SomeParam: string);
begin
FStringField := MakeUniqueString(_SomeParam);
inherited Create(false);
end;
Instead of:
procedure TMyThread.Create(const _SomeParam: string);
begin
FStringField := _SomeParam;
UniqueString(FStringField);
inherited Create(false);
end;
And is there any problem with writing such a function as
function MakeUniqueString(const _s: string): string;
begin
Result := _s;
UniqueString(Result);
end;
EDIT:
*1: Yes, my claim that reference counting is not thread safe is at least outdated or may even have been wrong alltogether. You can stop telling me that.
You can use
FStringField := Copy(_SomeParam, 1);
That will make a unique copy.
(Trivia: although documented as required, you can actually leave out the Count parameter and Copy will copy everything from the starting index to the end.)
Or you can make your own UniqueString:
function MakeUnique(const value: string): string; inline;
begin
Result := value;
UniqueString(Result);
end;
FStringField := MakeUnique(_SomeParam);
(Trivia: If you remove the inline, FStringField will actually have refcount 2 until the parent function (TMyThread.Create in your example) exits, because the compiler creates a hidden local variable that receives the result of the MakeUnique call and then assigns it to the FStringField. The string would still be unique so far as the parallel code is concerned.)
To answer the philosophical question - no, I don't think there is any big showstopper that prevents UniqueString by being implemented as a function. It just isn't.
I want to define an array of anonymous method: TFunc<Integer>:
function MyFunc: Integer;
begin
end;
procedure TForm84.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
var A: TArray<TFunc<Integer>>;
begin
A := [MyFunc];
end;
But Delphi compiler prompt error:
[dcc32 Error] E2010 Incompatible types: 'System.SysUtils.TFunc<System.Integer>' and 'Integer'
Using array for native data type like integer or string works for similar construct.
The compiler isn't able to decide whether your use of MyFunc means to call the function or to refer to it as function.
So you'll likely need to help the compiler out:
SetLength(A, 1);
A[0] := MyFunc;
MyFunc() does not take any input parameters, so Delphi allows it to optionally be called without parenthesis, eg:
var
I: Integer;
I := MyFunc();
I := MyFunc; // <-- same as above!
In a statement like A := [MyFunc];, the compiler is apparently not smart enough to figure out that the context in which MyFunc is used requires the address of MyFunc() to be passed to the array, and so it instead calls MyFunc() and passes the return value to the array, hence the error message.
So, you need to be more explicit to the compiler that the address is needed.
Try this:
A := [#MyFunc];
Or:
A := [Addr(MyFunc)];
Or:
type
TIntFuncArray := TArray<TFunc<Integer>>;
var
A: TIntFuncArray;
begin
A := TIntFuncArray.Create(MyFunc); // or maybe # or Addr(), not sure
end;
There is method:
function Test.get_Param(out a : BOOL): HRESULT; stdcall;
begin
a := b;
Result := T_Result;
end;
Now the exception happening on a := b; , happening Access violation Exception.
Ofcourse I can try and catch it. but I don't want to do that....
So Is there any way can determine use some way and skip the assignment. like:
if (! now I know it will happening that Exception){
a := b; // so I can skip
}
Result := T_Result;
Maybe it's very easy, but because I don't know use delphi, So hope your guys can help me. thanks.
Update1:
b: Boolean;//Some friend need to know what is the b param type.
Update2:
I'm try to use :
if b<> nil then Enabled := b;
but I can't build it , it will display: E2008 Incompatible types
Update3:
I'm trying to debug it, and when I'm debug, on the Local variables panel display:
a Inaccessible value
I'm use .NET called it. there is metadata:
bool get_Param{ [param: In, MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.Bool)] [PreserveSig] set; }
actually I'm not use .NET access it. I'm use .NET access a DirectShow filter, and the directshow filter is current method(write by delphi)
Update4:
this is partial C# code
[ComImport, InterfaceType(ComInterfaceType.InterfaceIsIUnknown), SuppressUnmanagedCodeSecurity, Guid("hidden")]
public interface IDCDSPFilterInterface{
bool get_Param{ [param: In, MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.Bool)] [PreserveSig] set; }
.. hidden other ..
}}
I'm try to use :
if b<> nil then Enabled := b;
but I can't build it , it will display: E2008 Incompatible types
Pointer variables are ABC of Pascal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(programming_language)#Pointer_types
So the proper way to write that check would be
function Test.get_Param(out a : BOOL): HRESULT; stdcall;
var ptr: ^BOOL;
begin
ptr := #a;
if nil = ptr then ....
a := b;
Result := T_Result;
end;
That is the basic question to you explicit questions.
Now, in reality that check does not help. It would only protect your from nil/NULL pointers, but that is not what probably happens. What happens is probably a random garbage pointer instead of nil. Due to error in the calling code.
Again, you can check that via var ptr: Pointer {untyped}; ptr := #Self; if ptr = nil then ... or just if nil <> Self or just if Assigned(Self) - but that would only protect you from NIL pointers, not from RANDOM GARBAGE pointers.
More so, i think that actual garbage is not in pointer to the variable a, but to the pointer to Self and b being a member of TEST classm, thus the real statement is a := Self.b;.
Since you use stdcall i think you're trying to make a DLL for using from an EXE made in a in non-Delphi language. Most probably you either made a wrong definition for function in that client app code. Actually, you just can make a proper declaration is you Test is a class. You only can make a proper if get_Param is a method of RECORD Test or perhaps if it is STATIC CLASS method of Test class. So the proper way to write your function would be like following
function Test.get_Param(out a : BOOL): HRESULT;
begin
a := b;
Result := T_Result;
end;
function DLL_get_Param(const TestObject: pointer; out a : BOOL): HRESULT; stdcall;
var MyTest: Test;
begin
pointer(MyTest) := TestObject;
Result := MyTest.DLL_get_Param(a);
end;
export DLL_get_Param;
Read Delphi documentation what you can get/put to/from DLL functions.
Integers, floats, pointers, IInterface. You cannot pass into DLL complex and behaving objects like stings, dynamic arrays, object instances. And since you cannot pass an object instance, you cannot pass a Self variable and you cannot call a method.
One very expensive way to catch it would be like
{global} var TestInstances: TList;
type
TEST = class...
procedure AfterConstructon; override;
procedure BeforeConstructon; override;
....
procedure Test.AfterConstructon;
begin
inherited;
TestInstances.Add(Self); // single-thread assumption here
end;
procedure Test.BeforeConstructon;
begin
TestInstances.Remove(Self); // single-thread assumption here
inherited;
end;
function Test.get_Param(out a : BOOL): HRESULT; stdcall;
begin
if not ( TestInstances.IndexOf(Self) >= 0 {found!} ) // single-thread assumption here
then ... WTF ???
...
....
initialization
TestInstances := TList.Create;
finalization
TestInstances.Free;
end;
If your DLL can be used by multi-threaded application you should also wrap the marked calls into http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/Libraries/XE2/en/System.SyncObjs.TCriticalSection
There is a gross mismatch across the two sides of your interop boundary. Your Delphi function does not match the C# declaration.
The solution is not to test for parameter validity. Your Delphi code, given the declaration of the function in the question, is correct. The solution is to make both sides of the interop boundary match. I cannot tell you more than that until you show both sides of the interop boundary.
Since I can't see where you've decalred b, I'm going to assume it's a member of Test.
So one strong possibility is that you have an invalid instance of Test, and you get an Access Violation trying to read b in order to assign it to a. As an example the following use of get_Param would raise an exception.
var
LTest: Test;
LA: Boolean;
begin
LTest := nil;
LTest.get_Param(LA);
end;
The point is that you need a valid instance of Test in order to use it. E.g.
var
LTest: Test;
LA: Boolean;
begin
LTest := Test.Create;
try
LTest.get_Param(LA);
finally
LTest.Free;
end;
end;
I have a record that looks like:
TBigint = record
PtrDigits: Pointer; <-- The data is somewhere else.
Size: Byte;
MSB: Byte;
Sign: Shortint;
...
class operator Implicit(a: TBigint): TBigint; <<-- is this allowed?
....
The code is pre-class operator legacy code, but I want to add operators.
I know the data should really be stored in a dynamic array of byte, but I do not want to change the code, because all the meat is in x86-assembly.
I want to following code to trigger the class operator at the bottom:
procedure test(a: TBignum);
var b: TBignum;
begin
b:= a; <<-- naive copy will tangle up the `PtrDigit` pointers.
....
If I add the implicit typecast to itself, will the following code be executed?
class operator TBigint.Implicit(a: TBigint): TBigint;
begin
sdpBigint.CreateBigint(Result, a.Size);
sdpBigint.CopyBigint(a, Result);
end;
(Will test and add the answer if it works as I expect).
My first answer attempts to dissuade against the idea of overriding the assignment operator. I still stand by that answer, because many of the problems to be encountered are better solved with objects.
However, David quite rightly pointed out that TBigInt is implemented as a record to leverage operator overloads. I.e. a := b + c;. This is a very good reason to stick with a record based implementation.
Hence, I propose this alternative solution that kills two birds with one stone:
It removes the memory management risks explained in my other answer.
And provides a simple mechanism to implement Copy-on-Write semantics.
(I do still recommend that unless there's a very good reason to retain a record based solution, consider switching to an object based solution.)
The general idea is as follows:
Define an interface to represent the BigInt data. (This can initially be minimalist and support only control of the pointer - as in my example. This would make the initial conversion of existing code easier.)
Define an implementation of the above interface which will be used by the TBigInt record.
The interface solves the first problem, because interfaces are a managed type; and Delphi will dereference the interface when a record goes out of scope. Hence, the underlying object will destroy itself when no longer needed.
The interface also provides the opportunity to solve the second problem, because we can check the RefCount to know whether we should Copy-On-Write.
Note that long term it might prove beneficial to move some of the BigInt implementation from the record to the class & interface.
The following code is trimmed-down "big int" implementation purely to illustrate the concepts. (I.e. The "big" integer is limited to a regular 32-bit number, and only addition has been implemented.)
type
IBigInt = interface
['{1628BA6F-FA21-41B5-81C7-71C336B80A6B}']
function GetData: Pointer;
function GetSize: Integer;
procedure Realloc(ASize: Integer);
function RefCount: Integer;
end;
type
TBigIntImpl = class(TInterfacedObject, IBigInt)
private
FData: Pointer;
FSize: Integer;
protected
{IBigInt}
function GetData: Pointer;
function GetSize: Integer;
procedure Realloc(ASize: Integer);
function RefCount: Integer;
public
constructor CreateCopy(ASource: IBigInt);
destructor Destroy; override;
end;
type
TBigInt = record
PtrDigits: IBigInt;
constructor CreateFromInt(AValue: Integer);
class operator Implicit(AValue: TBigInt): Integer;
class operator Add(AValue1, AValue2: TBigInt): TBigInt;
procedure Add(AValue: Integer);
strict private
procedure CopyOnWriteSharedData;
end;
{ TBigIntImpl }
constructor TBigIntImpl.CreateCopy(ASource: IBigInt);
begin
Realloc(ASource.GetSize);
Move(ASource.GetData^, FData^, FSize);
end;
destructor TBigIntImpl.Destroy;
begin
FreeMem(FData);
inherited;
end;
function TBigIntImpl.GetData: Pointer;
begin
Result := FData;
end;
function TBigIntImpl.GetSize: Integer;
begin
Result := FSize;
end;
procedure TBigIntImpl.Realloc(ASize: Integer);
begin
ReallocMem(FData, ASize);
FSize := ASize;
end;
function TBigIntImpl.RefCount: Integer;
begin
Result := FRefCount;
end;
{ TBigInt }
class operator TBigInt.Add(AValue1, AValue2: TBigInt): TBigInt;
var
LSum: Integer;
begin
LSum := Integer(AValue1) + Integer(AValue2);
Result.CreateFromInt(LSum);
end;
procedure TBigInt.Add(AValue: Integer);
begin
CopyOnWriteSharedData;
PInteger(PtrDigits.GetData)^ := PInteger(PtrDigits.GetData)^ + AValue;
end;
procedure TBigInt.CopyOnWriteSharedData;
begin
if PtrDigits.RefCount > 1 then
begin
PtrDigits := TBigIntImpl.CreateCopy(PtrDigits);
end;
end;
constructor TBigInt.CreateFromInt(AValue: Integer);
begin
PtrDigits := TBigIntImpl.Create;
PtrDigits.Realloc(SizeOf(Integer));
PInteger(PtrDigits.GetData)^ := AValue;
end;
class operator TBigInt.Implicit(AValue: TBigInt): Integer;
begin
Result := PInteger(AValue.PtrDigits.GetData)^;
end;
The following tests were written as I built up the proposed solution. They prove: some basic functionality, that the copy-on-write works as expected, and that there are no memory leaks.
procedure TTestCopyOnWrite.TestCreateFromInt;
var
LBigInt: TBigInt;
begin
LBigInt.CreateFromInt(123);
CheckEquals(123, LBigInt);
//Dispose(PInteger(LBigInt.PtrDigits)); //I only needed this until I
//started using the interface
end;
procedure TTestCopyOnWrite.TestAssignment;
var
LValue1: TBigInt;
LValue2: TBigInt;
begin
LValue1.CreateFromInt(123);
LValue2 := LValue1;
CheckEquals(123, LValue2);
end;
procedure TTestCopyOnWrite.TestAddMethod;
var
LValue1: TBigInt;
begin
LValue1.CreateFromInt(123);
LValue1.Add(111);
CheckEquals(234, LValue1);
end;
procedure TTestCopyOnWrite.TestOperatorAdd;
var
LValue1: TBigInt;
LValue2: TBigInt;
LActualResult: TBigInt;
begin
LValue1.CreateFromInt(123);
LValue2.CreateFromInt(111);
LActualResult := LValue1 + LValue2;
CheckEquals(234, LActualResult);
end;
procedure TTestCopyOnWrite.TestCopyOnWrite;
var
LValue1: TBigInt;
LValue2: TBigInt;
begin
LValue1.CreateFromInt(123);
LValue2 := LValue1;
LValue1.Add(111); { If CopyOnWrite, then LValue2 should not change }
CheckEquals(234, LValue1);
CheckEquals(123, LValue2);
end;
Edit
Added a test demonstrating use of TBigInt as value parameter to a procedure.
procedure TTestCopyOnWrite.TestValueParameter;
procedure CheckValueParameter(ABigInt: TBigInt);
begin
CheckEquals(2, ABigInt.PtrDigits.RefCount);
CheckEquals(123, ABigInt);
ABigInt.Add(111);
CheckEquals(234, ABigInt);
CheckEquals(1, ABigInt.PtrDigits.RefCount);
end;
var
LValue: TBigInt;
begin
LValue.CreateFromInt(123);
CheckValueParameter(LValue);
end;
There is nothing in Delphi that allows you to hook into the assignment process. Delphi has nothing like C++ copy constructors.
Your requirements, are that:
You need a reference to the data, since it is of variable length.
You also have a need for value semantics.
The only types that meet both of those requirements are the native Delphi string types. They are implemented as a reference. But the copy-on-write behaviour that they have gives them value semantics. Since you want an array of bytes, AnsiString is the string type that meets your needs.
Another option would be to simply make your type be immutable. That would let you stop worrying about copying references since the referenced data could never be modified.
It seems to me your TBigInt should be a class rather than a record. Because you're concerned about PtrDigits being tangled up, it sounds like you're needing extra memory management for what the pointer references. Since records don't support destructors there's no automatic management of that memory. Also if you simply declare a variable of TBigInt, but don't call the CreatBigInt constructor, the memory is not correctly initialised. Again, this is because you cannot override a record's default parameterless constructor.
Basically you have to always remember what has been allocated for the record and remember to manually deallocate. Sure you can have a deallocate procedure on the record to help in this regard, but you still have to remember to call it in the correct places.
However that said, you could implement an explicit Copy function, and add an item to your code-review checklist that TBitInt has been copied correctly. Unfortunately you'll have to be very careful with the implied copies such as passing the record via a value parameter to another routine.
The following code illustrates an example conceptually similar to your needs and demonstrates how the CreateCopy function "untangles" the pointer. It also highlights some of the memory management problems that crop up, which is why records are probably not a good way to go.
type
TMyRec = record
A: PInteger;
function CreateCopy: TMyRec;
end;
function TMyRec.CreateCopy: TMyRec;
begin
New(Result.A);
Result.A^ := A^;
end;
var
R1, R2: TMyRec;
begin
New(R1.A); { I have to manually allocate memory for the pointer
before I can use the reocrd properly.
Even if I implement a record constructor to assist, I
still have to remember to call it. }
R1.A^ := 1;
R2 := R1;
R2.A^ := 2; //also changes R1.A^ because pointer is the same (or "tangled")
Writeln(R1.A^);
R2 := R1.CreateCopy;
R2.A^ := 3; //Now R1.A is different pointer so R1.A^ is unchanged
Writeln(R1.A^);
Dispose(R1.A);
Dispose(R2.A); { <-- Note that I have to remember to Dispose the additional
pointer that was allocated in CreateCopy }
end;
In a nutshell, it seems you're trying to sledgehammer records into doing things they're not really suited to doing.
They are great at making exact copies. They have simple memory management: Declare a record variable, and all memory is allocated. Variable goes out of scope and all memory is deallocated.
Edit
An example of how overriding the assignment operator can cause a memory leak.
var
LBigInt: TBigInt;
begin
LBigInt.SetValue(123);
WriteBigInt(LBigInt); { Passing the value by reference or by value depends
on how WriteBigInt is declared. }
end;
procedure WriteBigInt(ABigInt: TBigInt);
//ABigInt is a value parameter.
//This means it will be copied.
//It must use the overridden assignment operator,
// otherwise the point of the override is defeated.
begin
Writeln('The value is: ', ABigInt.ToString);
end;
//If the assignment overload allocated memory, this is the only place where an
//appropriate reference exists to deallocate.
//However, the very last thing you want to do is have method like this calling
//a cleanup routine to deallocate the memory....
//Not only would this litter your code with extra calls to accommodate a
//problematic design, would also create a risk that a simple change to taking
//ABigInt as a const parameter could suddenly lead to Access Violations.
I have a procedure for sorting nodes in a node tree (VirtualTreeView)
All memory leaks, extracted from FMM4 report, are stored in objects of a class TMemoryLeakList(these are the list I want to sort), which are stored in a list of lists called TGroupedMemoryLeakList, and both TMLL and TGMLL extend TObjectList. If I want to keep the functionality of being able to chose between ascending and descending sort order and choosing between sorting by one of four different data types, I 'have to' implement EIGHT different comparison methods (4 sort types * 2 sort directions) which I pass on to the main sorting method, because my TMLL list extends TObjectList. The main sorting method look like this.
The values for the fields fSortType and fSortDirection are acquired from the GUI comboboxes.
One of those eight generic comparison functions looks like this.
The seven remaining are copy/pasted variations of this one.
Is there any rational way to refactor this huge amount of copy paste code and still keep the functionality of choosing a specific sort type and direction?
Nice question about refactoring, but I dislike the answer you presumably are looking for. There is nothing wrong with a few extra lines of code, or a few extra routines. Especially the latter in which case naming actively assist in more readability.
My advice would be: leave the design as you have, but shorten the code:
function CompareSizeAsc(Item1, Item2: Pointer): Integer;
begin
Result := TMemoryLeak(Item2).Size - TMemoryLeak(Item1).Size;
end;
function CompareSizeDesc(Item1, Item2: Pointer): Integer;
begin
Result := TMemoryLeak(Item1).Size - TMemoryLeak(Item2).Size;
end;
function CompareClassNameAsc(Item1, Item2: Pointer): Integer;
begin
Result := CompareStr(TMemoryLeak(Item1).ClassName,
TMemoryLeak(Item2).ClassName);
end;
procedure TMemoryLeakList.Sort;
begin
case FSortDirection of
sdAsc:
case FSortType of
stSize: inherited Sort(CompareSizeAsc);
stClassName: inherited Sort(CompareClassNameAsc);
stCallStackSize: inherited Sort(CompareCallStackSizeAsc);
stId: inherited Sort(CompareIdAsc);
end;
sdDesc:
case FSortType of
stSize: inherited Sort(CompareSizeDesc);
stClassName: inherited Sort(CompareClassNameDesc);
stCallStackSize: inherited Sort(CompareCallStackSizeDesc);
stId: inherited Sort(CompareIdDesc);
end;
end;
end;
You can't get it much smaller then this ánd preserve the same level of readability.
Of course, you could rewrite the Sort routine as suggested by Arioch 'The:
procedure TMemoryLeakList.Sort;
const
Compares: array[TSortDirection, TSortType] of TListSortCompare =
((CompareSizeAsc, CompareClassNameAsc, CompareCallStackSizeAsc,
CompareIdAsc), (CompareSizeDesc, CompareClassNameDesc,
CompareCallStackSizeDesc, CompareIdDesc));
begin
inherited Sort(Compares[FSortDirection, FSortType]);
end;
But then: why not rewrite the QuickSort routine to eliminate the need for separate compare routines?
Alternatively, you could add ownership to TMemoryLeak in which case you have a reference to the owning list and its sort direction and sort type, for use within óne single compare routine.
Use function pointers.
var comparator1, comparator2: function (Item1, Item2: Pointer): Integer;
function sortComplex (Item1, Item2: Pointer): Integer;
begin
Result := comparator1(Item1, Item2);
if 0 = Result then Result := comparator2(Item1, Item2);
end;
Then you GUI elements should behave like
case ListSortType.ItemIndex of
itemBySzie : comparator1 := sortBySizeProcAsc;
....
end;
DoNewSort;
PS: make sure that you correctly specify those pointers even before user 1st click any GUI element;
PPS: you can rearrange this even further like
type t_criteria = (bySize, byName,...);
t_comparators = array[t_criteria] of array [boolean {Descending?}]
of function (Item1, Item2: Pointer): Integer;
const comparator1table: t_comparators =
( {bySize} ( {false} sortBySizeProcAsc, {true} sortBySizeProcDesc),
{byName} ( {false} sortByNameProcAsc, ...
Then you would fill working pointers from that array constants
This is my solution. Apart from completely rewriting the two procedures I also added two 'static' variables to my TMemoryLeakList class, and removed the former instance variables of the same name. This way, they are globally accessible to the Sort function.
TMemoryLeakList=class(TObjectList)
class var fSortType :TMlSortType;
class var fSortDirection :TMLSortDirection;
...
end
procedure TMemoryLeakList.Sort;
begin
inherited sort(sortBySomethingSomething);
end;
function sortBySomethingSomething(Item1, Item2: Pointer): Integer;
var
a, b : string;
ret : Integer;
begin
ret := 1;
if(TMemoryLeakList.fSortDirection = sdAsc) then
ret := -1;
case TMemoryLeakList.fSortType of stSize:
begin
a := IntToStr(TMemoryLeak(Item1).Size);
b := IntToStr(TmemoryLeak(Item2).Size);
end;
end;
case TMemoryLeakList.fSortType of stClassName:
begin
a := TMemoryLeak(Item1).ClassName;
b := TMemoryLeak(Item2).ClassName;
end;
end;
case TMemoryLeakList.fSortType of stID:
begin
a := IntToStr(TMemoryLeak(Item1).ID);
b := IntToStr(TMemoryLeak(Item2).ID);
end;
end;
case TMemoryLeakList.fSortType of stCallStackSize:
begin
a := IntToStr(TMemoryLeak(Item1).CallStack.Count);
b := IntToStr(TMemoryLeak(Item2).CallStack.Count);
end;
end;
//...jos tu
if a=b then
Result:=0
else if a>b then
Result:=-1*ret
else if a<b then
Result:=1*ret;
end;
I would like to rewrite this solution so as to use instance bounded variables fSortType,fSortDirection in TMemoryLeakList, but it seems impossible to pass a member function to an inherited sort function (from TObjectList), or is it?