Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of Object Pascal and C

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chrisahn (talk | contribs) at 23:22, 11 February 2021 (Merge to Comparison of Pascal and C: Good catch. Is there anything in the Object Pascal article that isn't also in the Pascal article?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconComputing Redirect‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
RedirectThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconC/C++ NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject C/C++, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of C and C++ topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NAThis redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The string example is plain wrong ...

1. "as is a Keyword. This code will not compile. 2. The concatenation of a AnsiString with a Shortstring into a Shortstring will be silently truncated to 255 bytes if the resulting length exceeds the 255 char limit. I suggest the original author adapts the example accordingly.

Fixed and implemented

Next time, feel free to edit yourself, it's a wiki after all.

Leledumbo (talk) 02:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake...

quotation
Despite of its treatment as pointer, not all pointer style constructs could be used to array. For example, this code would compile fine but would cause access violation when executed:

void func(int *a) {
// RUNTIME ERROR! a is allocated statically
a = (int*) malloc(sizeof(int) * 10);
}

int main() {
int a[5];
func(a);
}
end of quotation

No, it is not a run time error. Remember that C/C++ passes parameters by value. So, "a" within "func" is a local copy of the pointer.
a = (int*) malloc(sizeof(int) * 10);
allocates the new memory, and assigns the memory address to "a", which is a local variable (as a byval parameter).

It is a memory leak, because the memory is allocated, and not freed. However, by itself, it will not cause an access violation.

If you were to declare "a" as const:
void func(int * const a) {
then you would get a compiler error. 107.33.42.66 (talk) 06:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right, please edit accordingly

I'd like to explain that things like this could happen (I had it some time ago, but I don't remember the exact code), but it looks like I've given a wrong example. Anyway, declaring the parameter as const doesn't give me compile error on gcc 4.8.1.

Leledumbo (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks!

I’ve just accidentally found this page. I actually meant to find Comparison of Pascal and C, because I already knew this kind of comparison page existed, I just didn’t know it’s title. The search terms “Pascal comparison” also listed this very page.

I hereby suggest to merge this article into Comparison of Pascal and C. AFAIK C does not have objects. This article is mainly comparing Standard, unextended Pascal to C. All those differences are already (more extensively) covered in Comparison of Pascal and C, so I think this article is rather redundant and should be merged there. But maybe I’m missing something?

‑‑ K (🗪 | ) 22:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I havent't really checked, but it looks like there's nothing in the Object Pascal article that isn't also in the Pascal article. If that's true, we could simply delete the Object Pascal article, because there would be no content that we'd need to merge. But I'm not sure. (I'd like to get the opinion of Leledumbo (who wrote most of both articles), but that account seems to have been inactive since 2016.) — Chrisahn (talk) 23:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]