When trying a new component for which there's no documentation, I need to go through its methods, properties, and events to try to figure out what it can do. Doing this through the IDE's Object Inspector is a bit tedious.
Is there a utility that presents this list in a more readable format?
Thank you.
When I want to know what something can do, I read the source code. The class declaration will contain a succinct list of all the methods and properties, unless there is a lot of inheritance. The definitions will tell you want the methods do.
Another thing is to declare a variable of the type you're interested in, type its name and a period, and then press Ctrl+Space to let Class Completion show you everything you can do.
As the others said, use the source. Also an UML tool will help.
But if you don't want to use this, you can use this procedure (you need Delphi 2010 for this, and be sure to add RTTI to your 'Uses' clause):
procedure DumpProps(aObject: TObject; aList: TStringList);
var
RttiContext: TRttiContext;
RttiType: TRttiType;
I: Integer;
n: integer;
props: TArray<TRttiProperty>;
begin
aList.Clear; //it must be <> nil
RttiType := RttiContext.GetType(aObject.ClassType);
props:=RttiType.GetProperties;
with aList do
begin
Append('');
Append('==========');
Append('Begin Dump');
Append('----------');
for I := Low(props) to High(props) do
begin
try
Append(props[i].Name+': '); //odd construction to see if the Getter blows
n:=Count-1;
Strings[n]:=Strings[n]+props[i].GetValue(aObject).AsString;
except
on E: Exception do
Strings[n]:=Strings[n]+' >>> ERROR! <<< '+E.Message;
end;
end;
end;
end;
The above you can use either at run-time, either if you build a Menu Wizard, you can have your info at design time.
HTH
You can use the Class Browser that comes with GExperts.
I would also recommend to build a Model diagram with the IDE or ModelMaker. It helps to see the visual relations.
In the immortal words of Obi Wan Kenobi -- "Use the source".
There is no substitute for reading and understanding the source code of a component (or anything) to understand what it does and what it is up to.
Source code is the Lingua Franca of programming.
Look at the .hpp that is generated for C++Builder support. It resembles the interface section of a Delphi unit.
I just use code completion. If you can't figure out what the component does from the names of the properties and methods, then it's probably poorly designed anyway, and you're better off not using it. Also, since you're asking the question, I'm guessing you do not have the source. If you don't, again, I wouldn't use the component. You're only storing trouble for yourself.
There is RTTI...
Related
I am in the progress of trying to learn a few new tricks in order to better organize some of the sourcecode in my units in Delphi.
I have noticed that some functions or methods I access appear to be classes inside classes, but I have not yet been successful in making a working class inside a class, although it compiles fine, I still get error messages when executing the code.
What I would like to do is to make kind of a tree with functions, procedures and values to set or get. I would be grateful if somebody could help me out a little bit with an example.
I have today some classes that are Types.
I then assign the types to a variable:
something=TSomething
and Then for something to happen I write "something.action".
My aim is to go further, and define sub-functions or/and sub-procedures.
Lets say I have three or four classes. TSnippet, TAction1, TAction2, TSubAction1, Etc.
I would like to use or assign these to a single variable and use them like:
Snippet.Action1.SubAction1.Organize(param1,param2);
Snippet.Action2.SubAction2.Returns='SomeString';
Snippet.Action1.SubAction1.SomeProcedure;
Is anybody able to help me with a useful example as in how to write code for this approach to work?
And also.. does anybydy know how such an implementation of code will affect CPYCycles needed in order to execute code versus the old fashioned method of having thousands of procedures with all different names, but more direct access (it feels like more direct access).
As of my first text was maybe a bit unclear, this follows.
I would like to make use of the editors automatic suggestions of procedures/functions available in order to simplify programming a little bit.
I started to make a Class for this, and it works great.
Consider a classname "Data". What can we do with data? We can Edit, Add, Delete, Save and Load.
Ok. This is my first Class.
Consider then another Class: "Encrypt". We can do DES, DES3, HASH, BITSHUFFLE.
I can go on with a third Class: "Compress". We can do LZW, ZIP, RAR, MP3, MPG, MP4, etc.
Instead of using these as 3 different classes, I would like to combine them in one, yet keeping them separate.
I would like to make a kind of an OwnerClass for the other classes. We can call this "MyStuff"
Whenever I type "MyStuff." in the editor, I should get up a list of "Data, Encrypt, Compress". Further, When I then choose "Compress", the next list for that class' procedures and functions will list up.
The classes may have some local variables, but the main functionality will be towards global arrays.
Maybe there are other ways of achieving this. I don't know.
My basic aim is to be able to categorize and put together routines that belong together.
This is already done in Units, but this does not help with the automatic list from the editor.
Thank you in advance.
Morten.
I think I understand what it is you're asking, after your edit.
What you're calling "classes in classes" are called properties and methods; they're other classes, variables, or procedures/functions that are declared in their containing class. The "list" you're talking about is called Code Insight, and it shows you the available properties and methods of the class you're referencing in your code at that point.
This should do something like you describe, and give you an idea of how to implement it in your own code:
unit MyStuffUnit;
interface
uses
SysUtils;
type
TEncryptionType = (etDES, etDES3, etHASH, etBITSHUFFLE);
TMyStuffEncryption = class(TObject)
private
FEncryptType: TEncryptionType;
public
constructor Create;
published
property EncryptionType: TEncryptionType read FEncryptType
write FEncryptType;
end;
TCompressionType = (ctLZW, ctZIP, ctRAR, ctMP3, ctMPG, ctMP4);
TMyStuffCompression = class(TObject)
private
FCompressionType: TCompressionType;
public
constructor Create;
published
property CompressionType: TCompressionType read FCompressionType
write FCompressionType;
end;
TMyStuff = class(TObject)
private
FCompression: TMyStuffCompression;
FEncryption: TMyStuffEncryption;
public
constructor Create;
destructor Destroy; override;
published
property Compression: TMyStuffCompression read FCompression
write FCompression;
property Encryption: TMyStuffEncryption read FEncryption
write FEncryption;
end;
implementation
constructor TMyStuffEncryption.Create;
begin
inherited;
FEncryptType := etDES;
end;
constructor TMyStuffCompression.Create;
begin
inherited;
FCompressionType := ctLZW;
end;
constructor TMyStuff.Create;
begin
inherited;
FCompression := TMyStuffCompression.Create;
FEncryption := TMyStuffEncryption.Create;
end;
destructor TMyStuff.Destroy;
begin
FCompression.Free;
FEncryption.Free;
inherited;
end;
end.
If you create an instance of TMyStuff in your code, you should be able to type MyStuff. and get the option of choosing Compression or Encryption. Choosing Compression should allow you to set the CompressionType property.
This should be enough to get you going. :-) Remember that Delphi includes the source code for the VCL and RTL in almost all editions, so you always have that to look at for examples. (They're not always the very best examples, but they should give you ideas on how to do things.)
This is similar to this question. I asked "Why?" to the most popular response but I don't know that anyone would ever look at it again. At least not in any timely manner.
Anyway, my question is about best practices for delegating responsibility for creation of objects to functions or procedures, without causing memory leaks. It seems that this:
procedure FillObject(MyObject: TMyObject; SomeParam: Integer);
begin
//Database operations to fill object
end;
procedure CallUsingProcedure();
var
MyObject: TMyObject;
begin
MyObject = TMyObject.Create();
try
FillObject(MyObject, 1);
//use object
finally
MyObject.Free();
end;
end;
is preferred over this:
function CreateMyObject(DBID: Integer): TMyObject;
begin
Result := TMyObject.Create();
try
//Database operations to fill object
except on E: Exception do
begin
Result.Free();
raise;
end;
end;
end;
procedure CallUsingFunction();
var
MyObject: TMyObject;
begin
MyObject = CreateMyObject(1);
try
//use object
finally
MyObject.Free();
end;
end;
Why?
I'm relatively new to Delphi, having previously worked most with Java and PHP, as well as C++, though to a lesser extent. Intuitively, I lean toward the function method because:
It encapsulates the object creation code in the function, rather than create the object separately whenever I want to use the procedure.
I dislike methods that alter their parameters. It's often left undocumented and can make tracing bugs more difficult.
Vague, but admittedly it just "smells" bad to me.
I'm not saying I'm right. I just want to understand why the community chooses this method and if there is good reason for me to change.
Edit:
References to #E-Rock in comments are to me(Eric G). I changed my display name.
One problem is what Ken White wrote: you hand the user of the function an object he or she must free.
Another advantage of procedures is that you can pass several objects of a hierarchy, while a function that creates such an object always generates the same. E.g.
procedure PopulateStrings(Strings: TStrings);
To that procedure, you can pass any kind of TStrings, be it the Lines of a TMemo, the Items of a TListBox or TComboBox or a simple standalone TStringList. If you have a function:
function CreateStrings: TStrings;
You always get the same kind of object back (which object exactly is not known, as TStrings is abstract, so you probably get a TStringList), and must Assign() the contents to the TStrings you want to modify. The procedure is to be preferred, IMO.
Additionally, if you are the author of the function, you can't control whether the object you create is freed, or when. If you write a procedure, that problem is taken off your hands, since the user provides the object, and its lifetime is none of your concern. And you don't have to know the exact type of the object, it must just be of the class or a descendant of the parameter. IOW, it is also much better for the author of the function.
It is IMO seldom a good idea to return an object from a function, for all the reasons given. A procedure that only modifies the object has no dependency on the object and creates no dependency for the user.
FWIW, Another problem is if you do that from a DLL. The object returned uses the memory manager of the DLL, and also the VMT to which it points is in the DLL. That means that code that uses as or is in the user code does not work properly (since is and as use the VMT pointer to check for class identity). If the user must pass an object of his, to a procedure, that problem does not arise.
Update
As others commented, passing an object to a DLL is not a good idea either. Non-virtual functions will call the functions inside the DLL and use its memory manager, which can cause troubles too. And is and as will not work properly inside the DLL either. So simply don't pass objects into or out of a DLL. That goes with the maxime that DLLs should only use POD type parameters (or compound types -- arrays, records -- that only contain POD types) or COM interfaces. The COM interfaces should also only use the same kind of parameters.
Creating the object instance and passing it into another procedure makes it clear which code is responsible for freeing the instance.
In the first case (using a procedure to fill it):
MyObj := TMyObject.Create;
try
// Do whatever with MyObj
finally
MyObj.Free;
end;
This is clear that this block of code is responsible for freeing MyObj when it's finished being used.
MyObj := CreateMyObject(DBID);
What code is supposed to free it? When can you safely free it? Who is responsible for exception handling? How do you know (as a user of someone else's code)?
As a general rule, you should create, use, and free object instances where they're needed. This makes your code easier to maintain, and definitely makes it easier for someone who comes along later and has to try and figure it out. :)
I use a combination of both idioms. Pass the object as an optional parameter and if not passed, create the object. And in either case return the object as the function result.
This technique has (1) the flexibility of the creation of the object inside of the called function, and (2) the caller control of the caller passing the object as a parameter. Control in two meanings: control in the real type of the object being used, and control about the moment when to free the object.
This simple piece of code exemplifies this idiom.
function MakeList(aList:TStrings = nil):TStrings;
var s:TStrings;
begin
s:=aList;
if s=nil then
s:=TSTringList.Create;
s.Add('Adam');
s.Add('Eva');
result:=s;
end;
And here are three different ways to use it
simplest usage, for quick and dirty code
var sl1,sl2,sl3:TStrings;
sl1:=MakeList;
when programmer wants to make more explicit ownership and/or use a custom type
sl2:=MakeList(TMyStringsList.create);
when the object is previously created
sl3:=TMyStringList.Create;
....
MakeList(sl3);
Code browsing is not working for my project. I set the Search Path to all the Source units that I am using. And also I deleted the .local and .identcache files. My project is compiling with no problems. What can I do to make ctrl + click work.
Thanks
One bug that I am aware of occurs when you have a class which declares a record inline, as so:
TMyClass = class
private
FData: record
MyData: Integer;
end;
end;
If you have any code like this then many of the IDE's code insight/completion/whatever features stop working. This fault stretches right back to Delphi 6 and possibly beyond.
I fix it with an class private type declaration:
TMyClass = class
private
type
TData = record
MyData: Integer;
end;
private
FData: TData;
end;
But if that syntax is not available in D2007 then you'd need to declare the record type outside the class.
Another factor which I find can confuse the IDE is if you are using a lot of conditional statements ($IFDEF and the like).
Finally I'd recommend installing Andreas Hausladen's IDEFixPack which does improve IDE behaviour.
Of course, your problem may be caused by something else, but without being able to experiment with your actual code, we have to guess to a degree.
Ctrl-Click easily gets confused when you use conditional defines to control what code gets compiled:
{$IFDEF DEBUG}
...
{$ENDIF}
Usually it needs a couple of these, but sometimes a single one of these, especially in the interface section, is enough to send Ctrl-Click into confusion.
Another time when I have seen Ctrl-Click not to work is when you are using project groups and the unit you have in the editor does not belong to the project that is currently active in the project group.
I had same problem with code browsing in my module (in Delphi XE3). Look for your source code and find construction like this:
procedure procName;
begin
if ... then
begin
...
end else
end;
Attention to last "else".
The compiler understands this code, but Code Browsing don't.
It's need to insert ";" after "else" or erase "else".
After this correction of source, the Code Browser is working.
What are pros and cons of duplication an object instance with constructor or instance function?
Example A:
type
TMyObject = class
strict private
FField: integer;
public
constructor Create(srcObj: TMyObject); overload;
//alternatively:
//constructor CreateFrom(srcObj: TMyObject);
property Field: integer read FField;
end;
constructor TMyObject.Create(srcObj: TMyObject);
begin
inherited Create;
FField := srcObj.Field;
end;
Example B:
type
TMyObject = class
strict private
FField: integer;
public
function Clone: TMyObject;
property Field: integer read FField;
end;
function TMyObject.Clone: TMyObject;
begin
Result := TMyObject.Create;
Result.FField := FField;
end;
One major difference immediately springs to mind - in the latter case the Create constructor would have to be virtual so that a class hierarchy supporting Clone could be built basing on the TMyObject.
Assume that this is not a problem - that TMyObject and everything based on it is entirely under my control. What is your preferred way of doing copy constructor in Delphi? Which version do you find more readable? When would you use former or latter approach? Discuss. :)
EDIT:
My main concern with the first example is that the usage is very heavy compared to the second approach, i.e.
newObj := TMyObject.Create(oldObj)
vs.
newObj := oldObj.Clone;
EDIT2 or "Why I want single-line operation"
I agree that Assign is a reasonable approach in most cases. It's even reasonable to implement 'copy constructor' internally by simply using assign.
I'm usually creating such copies when multithreading and passing objects through the message queue. If object creation is fast, I usually pass a copy of the original object because that really simplifies the issues of object ownership.
IOW, I prefer to write
Send(TMyObject.Create(obj));
or
Send(obj.Clone);
to
newObj := TMyObject.Create;
newObj.Assign(obj);
Send(newObj);
The first adds information about which object to want to create, the second not. This can be used to instantiate e.g. a descendant or an ancestor of a class
The Delphi way (TPersistent) separates creation and cloning:
dest := TSomeClass.Create;
dest.Assign(source);
and has this same property that you explicitly choose the class to instantiate. But you don't need two constructors, one for normal use, and one where you want to clone.
edit due to oneline requirement
You can mix it of course using Delphi metaclasses (untested)
type
TBaseSomeObject = class;
TBaseObjectClass = class of TBaseSomeObject;
TBaseSomeObject = class(TPersistent)
function Clone(t: TBaseObjectClass = nil): TBaseSomeObject; virtual;
end;
...
function TBaseSomeObject.Clone(t: TBaseObjectClass = nil): TBaseSomeObject;
begin
if Assigned(t) then
Result := t.Create
else
Result := TBaseObjectClass(Self.ClassType).Create;
Result.Assign(Self);
end;
SendObject(obj.Clone); // full clone.
SendObject(obj.Clone(TDescandantObject)); // Cloned into Descendant object
For the rest, just implement your assign() operators, and you can mix multiple ways.
edit2
I replaced the code above with code tested in D2009. There are some dependencies of the types that might have confused you, hope it is clearer this way. Of course you'll have to study the assign mechanism. I also tested the metaclass=nil default parameter and it works, so I added it.
I don't think there is a correct way it just depend on personal style. (And as Marco pointed out, there are more ways.)
The constructor way is short but it violates the principle that the constructor must only construct the object. Which is possibly not a problem.
The clone way is short although you need to provide a call for each class.
The assign way is more Delphi like. It separates creation and initialization which is good because we like the one method one function concept that makes code better to maintain.
And if you implement Assign using streams, you have only one place to worry about which fields need to be available.
I like the clone style - but only in Java (or any other GC language). I used it some times in Delphi, but mostly I stay with Create and Assign, because it is much clearer who is responsible for the destruction of the object.
I use the second method, the one with the Clone function, and it works like a charm, even with complex classes. I find it more readable and error proof.
I been reading bad things about the with keyword in delphi but, in my opinion, if you don't over use it. It can make your code look simple.
I often put all my TClientDataSets and TFields in TDataModules. So in my forms I had code like this
procedure TMyForm.AddButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
begin
with LongNameDataModule do
begin
LongNameTable1.Insert;
LongNameTable1_Field1.Value := "some value";
LongNameTable1_Field2.Value := LongNameTable2_LongNameField1.Value;
LongNameTable1_Field3.Value := LongNameTable3_LongNameField1.Value;
LongNameTable1_Field4.Value := LongNameTable4_LongNameField1.Value;
LongNameTable1.Post;
end
end;
without the with keyword I have to write the code like this
procedure TMyForm.AddButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
begin
LongNameDataModule.LongNameTable1.Insert;
LongNameDataModule.LongNameTable1_LongNameField1.Value := "some value";
LongNameDataModule.LongNameTable1_LongNameField2.Value :=
LongNameDataModule.LongNameTable2_LongNameField1.Value;
LongNameDataModule.LongNameTable1_LongNameField3.Value :=
LongNameDataModule.LongNameTable3_LongNameField1.Value;
LongNameDataModule.LongNameTable1_LongNameField4.Value :=
LongNameDataModule.LongNameTable4_LongNameField1.Value;
LongNameDataModule.LongNameTable1.Post;
end;
I think is easier to read using the with keyword.
Should I avoid using the with keyword?
The biggest danger of with, outside of pathological conditions like "with A, B, C, D" is that your code can silently change meaning with no notice to you. Consider this example:
with TFoo.Create
try
Bar := Baz;
DoSomething();
finally
Free;
end;
You write this code knowing that Bar is a property of TFoo, and Baz is a property of the type containing the method which has this code.
Now, two years later, some well-meaning developer comes in adds a Baz property to TFoo. Your code has silently changed meaning. The compiler won't complain, but the code is now broken.
The with keyword is a nice feature for making your code more readable but there are some pitfalls.
Debugging:
When using code like this:
with TMyClass.Create do
try
Add('foo');
finally
Free;
end;
There is no way to inspect the properties of this class, so always declare a variable and use the with keyword on that.
Interfaces:
When creating an interface in the with clause it lives till the end of your method:
procedure MemoryHog;
begin
with GetInterfaceThatTakes50MBOfMemory do
Whatever;
ShowMessage('I''m still using 50MB of memory!');
end;
Clarity
When using a class in a with clause that has properties or method names that already exists within the scope, it can fool you easily.
with TMyForm.Create do
Width := Width + 2; //which width in this with is width?
Of course when having duplicate names, you're using the properties and methods of the class declared in your with statement (TMyForm).
The with statement has its place but I have to agree that overuse can lead to ambiguous code. A good rule of thumb is to make sure the code is "more" readable and maintainable after adding the with statement. If you feel you need to add comments to explain the code after adding the statement then it is probably a bad idea. If the code is more readable as in your example then use it.
btw: this was always one of my favorite patterns in Delphi for showing a modal window
with TForm.Create(nil) do
try
ShowModal;
finally
Free;
end
I tend towards baning the with-statement altogether. As previously stated, it can make things complicated, and my experience is that it will. Many times the debugger want evaluate values because of withs, and all to often I find nested withs that lead to code that hard to read.
Brian's code seems readable and nice, but the code would be shorter if you just typecast the sender directly, and you remove all doubt about that component you enable:
TAction(Sender).Enabled := Something;
If you are concerned about typing to much, I prefare to make a temporary referance to the long-named object:
var
t: TTable;
begin
t := theLongNamedDataModule.WithItsLongNamedTable;
t.FieldByName(' ');
end;
I can't se why typing should bother you, though. We Are Typists First, Programmers Second, and code-completion, copy-paste and key-recording can help you be a more effective typist.
update:
Just stumbled over an long article with a little section on with-statements: he with keyword. The most hideous, dangerous, blow-your-own-feet-off feature in the language. :-)
When I first began pascal programming (with TurboPascal!) and learnt as I went, WITH seemed wonderful. As you say, the answer to tedious typing and ideal for those long records. Since Delphi arrived, I've been removing it and encouraging other to drop it - neatly summed-up by Verity at the register
Apart from a reduction in readability there are two main reasons why I'd avoid it:
If you use a class then you dont need it anyway - only records 'seem' to benefit from it.
Using the debugger to follow the code to the declaration with Ctrl-Enter doesnt work.
That said, for readability I still use the syntax:
procedure ActionOnUpdate( Sender : TObject )
begin
With Sender as TAction do
Enabled := Something
end;
I've not seen a better construct.
Your example, of a datamodule access within a button click, is a poorly contrived example in my opinion. The whole need for WITH goes away if you move this code into the data module where it should be. The OnClick then just calls LongNameDataModule.InsertStuff and there is no with needed.
With is a poor device, and you should look at your code to see why you are needing it. You probably did something wrong, or could do it a better way.
As Vegar mentioned, it's just as neat and much more readable, easier to debug, and less prone to stealth issues to use a temporary reference.
So far, I have never found a need to use with. I used to be ambivalent over it, until I took over a project that used the mind bending double with frequently. Questioning whether the original developer intended to reference items in the first with or second, if that ambiguous reference was a with-slip or clumsy code, the torment of trying to debug it, and the knock on effects of extending or modifying classes that use these abominations is just not worth anyone's time.
Explicit code is simply more readable. This way you can have your cake and enjoy eating it.
procedure TMyForm.AddButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
var
dm: TLongNameDataModuleType
begin
dm:=LongNameDataModule;
dm.LongNameTable1.Insert;
dm.LongNameTable1_Field1.Value := "some value";
dm.LongNameTable1_Field2.Value := LongNameTable2_LongNameField1.Value;
dm.LongNameTable1_Field3.Value := LongNameTable3_LongNameField1.Value;
dm.LongNameTable1_Field4.Value := LongNameTable4_LongNameField1.Value;
dm.LongNameTable1.Post;
end;
I'm a firm believer of removing WITH support in Delphi. Your example usage of using a datamodule with named fields is about the only instance I could see it working out. Otherwise the best argument against it was given by Craig Stuntz - which I voted up.
I just like to point out that over time you may eventually (should) rmeove all coding in OnClick events and your code will also eventually migrate away from named fields on datamodules into using classes that wrap this data and the reason to use WITH will go away.
Your question is an excellent example of 'a hammer is not always the solution'.
In this case, 'with' is not your solution: You should move this business logic out of your form into your datamodule.
Not doing so violates Law of Demeter like mghie (Michael Hieke) already commented.
Maybe your example was just illustrative, but if you are actually using code like that in your projects, this is what you should do in stead:
procedure TLongNameDataModule.AddToLongNameTable1(const NewField1Value: string);
begin
LongNameTable1.Insert;
LongNameTable1_Field1.Value := NewField1Value;
LongNameTable1_Field2.Value := LongNameTable2_LongNameField1.Value;
LongNameTable1_Field3.Value := LongNameTable3_LongNameField1.Value;
LongNameTable1_Field4.Value := LongNameTable4_LongNameField1.Value;
LongNameTable1.Post;
end;
And then call it from your form like this:
procedure TMyForm.AddButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
begin
LongNameDataModule.AddToLongNameTable1('some value');
end;
This effectively gets rid of your with statement, and makes your code more maintainable at the same time.
Of course surrounding Delphi strings with single quotes will help making it compile as well ;-)
The main problem with "with" is that you don't know where its scope ends, and you could have multiple overlapping with statements.
I don't think you should avoid using it, as long as your code is readable.
One of the proposals to make it more readable (and less confusing in longer code) was if codegear added the option to allow for aliases in with, and probably allowing multiple withs in one:
procedure TMyForm.AddButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
begin
with LongNameDataModule as dm, dm.LongNameTable1 as t1, dm.LongNameTable2 as t2 do
begin
t1.Insert;
t1.FieldByName('Field1').AsString := 'some value';
t1.FieldByName('Field2').AsString := t2.FieldByName('Field2').AsString;
t1.Post;
dm.Connection.Commit;
end
end;
As far as I'm concerned, With is quite acceptable in the case you give. It certainly improves the code clarity.
The real evil is when you have multiple with's open at once.
Also, my opinion is that what you are using the with on makes a big difference. If it's a truly different object then the with is probably a bad idea. However, I dislike having a lot of variables at one level even when this makes sense--generally data objects that hold an entire very complex data item--generally the entire piece of work the program is designed to work with. (I do not think this case would occur in an app that didn't have such an item.) To make the world clearer I often use records to group related items. I find that almost all withs I use are for accessing such subgroups.
There are many excelent answers here as to why the with statement is bad, so I'll try not to repeat them. I've been using the with statement for years and I'm very much starting to shy away from it. This is partially beause it can be difficult to work out scope, but I've been starting to get into refactoring lately, and none of the automated refactorings work withing a with statement - and automated refactoring is awesome.
Also some time ago I made a video on why the with statement is bad, it's not one of my best works but Here it is
Use with only temporarily (just as you comment-out temporarily).
It helps you write code sketches to get something compiled and running fast. If you consolidate the solution, clean it up! Remove with as you move code to the right place.
The current With statement is "dangerous", but it can be substantially improved:
With TForm1.Create (Nil) Do // New TForm1 instance
Try
LogForm ("); // That same instance as parameter to an outer method
"ShowModal; // Instance.ShowModal
Finally
"Free; // Instance.Free
End;
My proposal is:
No more than one object/record per With header.
Nested Withs not allowed.
Usage of " to indicate the object/record (double quotes are similar
to the ditto mark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditto_mark).