I do use that object...

-
I do use that object...

procedure TClassInstanceDictionary.SendNotifyTelegram(const id: Integer; const tlg: TPSDTelegramBase);
var
  Obj : TBaseClass;
begin
  Obj := Items[Id] as TBaseClass; // <-- Hint
  Obj.SendNotifyTelegram(tlg);
end;

[dcc32 Hint] SomeUnit.pas(xxx): H2077 Value assigned to 'Obj' never used

Comments

  1. Eric GrangeJune 3, 2013 at 8:33 AM

    Nobody uses telegrams anymore, that so 1800's ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Lars FosdalJune 3, 2013 at 8:36 AM

    When you have multiple concurrent client apps that massage the same data sets. and a server that mess with the massaged data - telegrams are a necessary evil - unless you want to go MQ or something - and - you don't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Willo “qbitza” van der MerweJune 3, 2013 at 1:16 PM

    Or just get rid of the dead variable:
    (Items[id] as TBaseClass).SendNotifyTelegram (tlg);

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lars FosdalJune 3, 2013 at 1:23 PM

    Willo van der Merwe - That's a bit trickey in XE4.

    procedure TClassInstanceDictionary.SendNotifyTelegram(const id: Integer; const tlg: TPSDTelegramBase);
    begin
       (Items[Id] as TBaseClass).SendNotifyTelegram(tlg);
    en|d;
         ^[dcc32 Fatal Error] SomeUnit.pas(xxx): F2084 Internal Error: C1769

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lars FosdalJune 3, 2013 at 1:25 PM

    Same for
       TBaseClass(Items[Id]).SendNotifyTelegram(tlg);

    ReplyDelete
  6. Willo “qbitza” van der MerweJune 3, 2013 at 1:28 PM

    Oh dear. I thought the compiler might choke, but not like that!

    Hard cast it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Willo “qbitza” van der MerweJune 3, 2013 at 9:58 PM

    Lars Fosdal sounds to me like you uncovered a compiler bug.

    Can you recreate it in a new project, with a similar sample class?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lars FosdalJune 3, 2013 at 11:14 PM

    I'll try - but there are several other massive generics classes in the unit, so it might not be possible to make a "mini version" of it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dorin DuminicaJune 4, 2013 at 12:58 AM

    not impressed with xe4, not impressed at all... hoping that xe5 will worth it...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lars FosdalJune 4, 2013 at 1:03 AM

    There are a few nice small changes for the better - but yeah - it is still plagued with a lot of the old troubles with regards to the IDE, and not to forget - useless internal errors in the Generics compiler.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dorin DuminicaJune 4, 2013 at 1:07 AM

    „There are a few nice small changes for the better¯
    you should get at least "something" for the upgrade... but based on your posts(thank you a lot for them), it seems that there's quite a bit of hassle to upgrade, many things need to be tested and fiddle with in order to keep my projects working...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Lars FosdalJune 4, 2013 at 1:11 AM

    No more hassles than expected, I'd say. It's on par with the previous updates.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Lars FosdalJune 4, 2013 at 1:11 AM

    ... not that it in any way should be seen as a measure of success.  They really need to improve the IDE.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dorin DuminicaJune 4, 2013 at 1:24 AM

    oh yea, the friggin' IDE!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Stefan GlienkeJune 4, 2013 at 2:09 AM

    Dorin Duminica The compiler went straight downhill regarding generics from XE3 on ... I just completly ticked out yesterday when I read the resolution comment on QC#116151...

    ReplyDelete
  16. Eric GrangeJune 4, 2013 at 2:46 AM

    Stefan Glienke Ouch...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment