I was unable to follow how it is working.
A very simple example first, to try explain my situation better.
This code is inside a new Form Form1 create in a new project. Where mmo1 is a Memo component.
TOb = class
Name : String;
constructor Create(Name : String);
procedure Go();
end;
procedure TOb.Go;
begin
Form1.mmo1.Lines.Add(Name);
end;
Then I have a button with this event:
procedure TForm1.btn4Click(Sender: TObject);
var
Index : Integer;
begin
mmo1.Lines.Clear;
for Index := 1 to 3 do
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(TOb.Create('Thread ' + IntToStr(Index)).Go).Start;
end;
And my output on the memo is:
Thread 4
Thread 4
Thread 4
I really don't got it.
First question: Why the "Name" output is: Thread 4? Is a For loop from 1 to 3. At least should be 1 or 3
Second: Why it only execute the last thread "Thread 4", instead of 3 times in sequence "Thread 1", "Thread 2", "Thread 3"?
Why I'm asking this? I have an object that has already a process working fine. But now I found me in a situation that I need a List of this object to be processed. Sure work fine process one by one, but in my case they are independent one of other so I thought "hm, lets put them in threads, so it will run faster".
To avoid modifying the object to extend TThread and overriding Execute I look up on how to execute a thread with a procedure instead of an object that inherits from TThread and found the Anonymous Thread. Works really great with one object, but when I tried loop through my object list, strange behaviors happens.
This has the same effect.
for Index := 1 to 3 do
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(
procedure
var
Ob : TOb;
begin
OB := TOb.Create('Thread ' + IntToStr(Index));
OB.Go;
end
).Start;
Sure I'm not clean the object, this was just some tests that I was running.
Any Ideas? Or in this case I will need to inherits from TThread and override the Execute methode?
The funny thing is that THIS runs just fine.
mmo1.Lines.Clear;
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(TOb.Create('Thread ' + IntToStr(1)).Go).Start;
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(TOb.Create('Thread ' + IntToStr(2)).Go).Start;
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(TOb.Create('Thread ' + IntToStr(3)).Go).Start;
Output:
Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 3
Works really great with one object, but when I tried loop through my object list, strange behaviors happens.
You are likely not taking into account how anonymous procedures bind to variables. In particular:
Note that variable capture captures variables--not values. If a variable's value changes after being captured by constructing an anonymous method, the value of the variable the anonymous method captured changes too, because they are the same variable with the same storage. Captured variables are stored on the heap, not the stack.
For example, if you do something like this:
var
Index: Integer;
begin
for Index := 0 to ObjList.Count-1 do
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(TOb(ObjList[Index]).Go).Start;
end;
You will actually cause an EListError exception in the threads (I least when I tested it - I don't know why it happens. Verified by assigning an OnTerminate handler to the threads before calling Start(), and then having that handler check the TThread(Sender).FatalException property).
If you do this instead:
var
Index: Integer;
Ob: TOb;
begin
for Index := 0 to ObjList.Count-1 do
begin
Ob := TOb(ObjList[Index]);
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(Ob.Go).Start;
end;
end;
The threads won't crash anymore, but they are likely to operate on the same TOb object, because CreateAnonymousThread() is taking a reference to the TOb.Go() method itself, and then your loop is modifying that reference's Self pointer on each iteration. I suspect the compiler is likely generating code similar to this:
var
Index: Integer;
Ob: TOb;
Proc: TProc; // <-- silently added
begin
for Index := 0 to ObjList.Count-1 do
begin
Ob := TOb(ObjList[Index]);
Proc := Ob.Go; // <-- silently added
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(Proc).Start;
end;
end;
If you do this instead, it will have a similar issue:
procedure StartThread(Proc: TProc);
begin
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(Proc).Start;
end;
...
var
Index: Integer;
Ob: TOb;
begin
for Index := 0 to ObjList.Count-1 do
begin
Ob := TOb(ObjList[Index]);
StartThread(Ob.Go);
end;
end;
Probably because the compiler generates code similar to this:
procedure StartThread(Proc: TProc);
begin
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(Proc).Start;
end;
...
var
Index: Integer;
Ob: TOb;
Proc: TProc; // <--
begin
for Index := 0 to ObjList.Count-1 do
begin
Ob := TOb(ObjList[Index]);
Proc := Ob.Go; // <--
StartThread(Proc);
end;
end;
This will work fine, though:
procedure StartThread(Ob: TOb);
begin
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(Ob.Go).Start;
end;
...
var
Index: Integer;
Ob: TOb;
begin
for Index := 0 to ObjList.Count-1 do
begin
Ob := TOb(ObjList[Index]);
StartThread(Ob);
// or just: StartThread(TOb(ObjList[Index]));
end;
end;
By moving the call to CreateAnonymousThread() into a separate procedure that isolates the actual reference to TOb.Go() into a local variable, you remove any chance of conflict in capturing the reference for multiple objects.
Anonymous procedures are funny that way. You have to be careful with how they capture variables.
After reading a the article that Remy Lebeau post on the comments, I found this solution.
changing the main object by add one more procedure that make the call.
Change the loop instead of creating the anonymous thread at the main loop, it is created inside the object.
TOb = class
Name : String;
constructor Create(Name : String);
procedure Process();
procedure DoWork();
end;
procedure TOb.Process;
begin
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(DoWork).Start;
end;
procedure TOb.DoWork;
var
List : TStringList;
begin
List := TStringList.Create;
List.Add('I am ' + Name);
List.Add(DateTimeToStr(Now));
List.SaveToFile('D:\file_' + Name + '.txt');
List.Free;
end;
And the loop:
List := TObjectList<TOb>.Create();
List.Add(TOb.Create('Thread_A'));
List.Add(TOb.Create('Thread_B'));
List.Add(TOb.Create('Thread_C'));
List.Add(TOb.Create('Thread_D'));
for Obj in List do
//TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(Obj.Go).Start;
Obj.Process;
Thats resolves the problem with just a minimum change on the Main Object.
This about race condition. When you increased to max value to 100, you will see different values. Threading not guarantee when Thread starts or ends.
You can try this code block.
for I := 1 to 100 do
begin
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(
procedure
var
Msg : string;
begin
try
Msg := 'This' + I.ToString;
MessageDlg(Msg,mtCustom,
[mbYes,mbAll,mbCancel], 0);
Except
on E: Exception do
End;
end
).Start;
end;
If you want a guarantee to write 1 to 4, you should instantiate every value before send to Thread.
for I := 1 to 100 do
begin
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(
procedure
var
Msg : string;
begin
var instanceValue := I;
try
Msg := 'This' + instanceValue.ToString;
MessageDlg(Msg,mtCustom,
[mbYes,mbAll,mbCancel], 0);
Except
on E: Exception do
End;
end
).Start;
end;
Related
This question already has an answer here:
How Can I Replace StringList.Sort with a Stable Sort in Delphi?
(1 answer)
Closed 1 year ago.
I have the following (simplified) class definition:
TMyObject = class
private
FDoubleValue: Double;
FText: string;
protected
public
constructor Create(ADoubleValue: Double; AText: string);
property DoubleValue: Double read FDoubleValue write FDoubleValue;
property Text: string read FText write FText;
end;
The following sample code, shows how I am sorting the TObjectList<TMyObject> (FMyObjects) and displaying them in a TListBox.
constructor TfrmMain.Create(AOwner: TComponent);
begin
inherited;
FMyObjects := TObjectList<TMyObject>.Create;
FMyObjects.OwnsObjects := true; // Default but for clarity
end;
destructor TfrmMain.Destroy;
begin
FMyObjects.Free;
inherited;
end;
procedure TfrmMain.FormCreate(Sender: TObject);
var
ii: Integer;
begin
FMyObjects.Add(TMyObject.Create(100.00, 'Item 1'));
FMyObjects.Add(TMyObject.Create(200.00, 'Item 2'));
FMyObjects.Add(TMyObject.Create(300.00, 'Item 3')); // Duplicate sort value
FMyObjects.Add(TMyObject.Create(300.00, 'Item 4')); // Duplicate sort value
FMyObjects.Add(TMyObject.Create(400.00, 'Item 5'));
ObjectsToListBox;
end;
procedure TfrmMain.SortList;
var
Comparer: IComparer<TMyObject>;
begin
Comparer := TDelegatedComparer<TMyObject>.Create(
function(const MyObject1, MyObject2: TMyObject): Integer
begin
result := CompareValue(MyObject1.DoubleValue, MyObject2.DoubleValue, 0);
end);
FMyObjects.Sort(Comparer);
end;
procedure TfrmMain.ObjectsToListBox;
var
ii: Integer;
begin
ListBox1.Items.Clear;
for ii := 0 to FMyObjects.Count - 1 do
ListBox1.Items.Add(Format('%d - %.1f - %s', [ii, FMyObjects[ii].DoubleValue,
FMyObjects[ii].Text]));
end;
procedure TfrmMain.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
SortList;
ObjectsToListBox;
end;
Every time Button1 is clicked (and the list sorted), FMyObjects[2] (Item3) and FMyObjects[3] ('Item4') swap position in the list. In my "real world" (drawing) application this is undesirable.
I also experimented with different values for Epsilon in the CompareValue function call and also a different implementation of the anonymous function (comparing values and returning 1, -1 or 0), but neither seems to make a difference.
Am I missing something (e.g. a property that controls this behavior) or is this "by design" and it cannot be prevented?
This is by design. The internally used Quicksort implementation is not a stable one, so reorder of equal items is expected. To make the sort stable you need to extend your comparer to take that into account. F.i. you can compare the Text properties when the DoubleValue properties are equal.
I am writing which component will run through the array like ['form1.Button1', 'form1.memo1', 'form1'] - like
And put the showms2 handler on it (form1.Button1.onclick: = showms2)
var
comp: array of Tcomponent;
met: Tmethod;
start off
setlength (comp, Lines.Count);
for i: = 0 to Lines.Count-1 do
start off
comp [i]: = (FindComponent (Lines.Names [i]) as TControl);
met: = GetMethodProp (comp [i], 'OnClick');
meth.Code: = form1.MethodAddress ('showms2');
met.Data: = 0;
// When splitting into elements, nothing happens, is there an alternative?
FindComponent() does not work the way you are using it. You need to specify only the name of a component that is directly owned by the component being searched, you can't specify a chain of components, ie Form1.FindComponent('Form1.Button1') won't ever work, but Form1.FindComponent('Button1') will work, if Form1 owns Button1.
Also, if you are going to set both TMethod.Code and TMethod.Data then calling GetMethodProp() is completely redundant and should be removed.
Also, you need to use SetMethodProp() to actually assign the TMethod to the target event.
Try this instead:
var
comp: TComponent;
met: TMethod;
i: Integer;
begin
for i := 0 to Lines.Count-1 do
begin
comp := FindComponent(Lines.Names[i]);
if comp <> nil then
begin
if IsPublishedProp(comp, 'OnClick') then
begin
meth.Code := Form1.MethodAddress('showms2');
meth.Data := Form1;
SetMethodProp(comp, 'OnClick', met);
end;
end;
end;
end;
I have a small terminal program which displays a menu. I want to have a function which takes the user's input and an array of procedure names and be able to call the procedure the user chose. I know that I could do that using if or case statements in the main program, but I want to make a unit with the above procedure and a couple of other menu functions, and if this was possible, I could make it call arbitrary procedures. Here's more or less how I would like it to work (I know it's wrong, but so you get a general idea).
program menu;
uses crt;
type procs = array [0..1] of procedure;
procedure call_procs(inp: int; procsy: procs);
begin
writeln(procsy[ord(inp)]); {And call it here.}
end;
var procsx : procs;
begin
procsx[0] := readkey; {I would like to somehow store the procedure here.}
procsx[1] := clrscr;
call_procs(0, procsx);
end.
Is there any way to do something like this? Thank you in advance.
There are a few things wrong with your original code which are not cited in your answer.
You have an array of procedure but you are calling writeln with these procedure calls as arguments as if they were function, which they are not.
readkey is a function, not a procedure, so its type doesn't match the element type of your array
Your assignment of the procedures to the array need to use # to reference the procedure pointer and not actually call the procedure
Not sure what compiler or options you're using, but int isn't the standard Pascal integer type, rather integer is.
As a niggle, since you're already using the integer index of the array, you don't need to use ord.
So the minimal changes to your code to make it basically work would be:
program menu;
uses crt;
type procs = array [0..1] of procedure;
procedure call_procs(inp: integer; procsy: procs);
begin
procsy[inp]; { call the procedure here - removed 'ord' since it's superfluous }
end;
var procsx : procs;
begin
{ procsx[0] := readkey; {- 'readkey' is a function and won't work here }
procsx[1] := #clrscr;
call_procs(1, procsx);
end.
You can create an array of functions that return char which matches the type for readkey:
program menu;
uses crt;
type procs = array [0..1] of function: char;
procedure call_procs(inp: integer; procsy: procs);
begin
writeln(procsy[inp]); { call the function; write out the returned char }
end;
function foo: char;
begin
foo := 'X';
end;
var procsx : procs;
begin
procsx[0] := #readkey;
procsx[1] := #foo;
call_procs(0, procsx);
call_procs(1, procsx);
end.
I figured out how to do this. One can use pointers to a procedure, then create an array of those pointers, and pass them to the procedure I wanted to use. Also, for some reason, it doesn't seem to work with the functions that come with Pascal (such as readkey or clrscr). For this example, one could do this:
program menu;
type
Tprocptr = procedure; {This creates a pointer to procedures.}
Tprocarray = array of Tprocptr;
procedure writeHi;
begin
writeln('Hi!');
end;
procedure writeHello;
begin
writeln('Hello!');
end;
procedure call_proc(inp: integer; procsy: Tprocarray);
{This now calls functions like one would expect.}
begin
procsy[ord(inp)];
end;
var
proclist : Tprocarray;
begin
setlength(proclist, 2);
proclist[0] := #writeHi; {The '#' creates a pointer to those procedures.}
proclist[1] := #writeHello;
call_proc(0, proclist);
end.
This works as expected, calling (in this case) the procedure writeHi, so if you run this program it will output Hi! to the terminal. If you change call_proc(0,proclist) to call_proc(1, proclist), it will call writeHello instead.
I was trying to use same printing procedure for two types of arrays(1st arry length was 10, 2nd array length was 15).
I could not find any solution over internet. Did any one have any solution for this problem.
this is the Two arrays
program pp1;
const
m=10;
n=15;
type
matrix1=array[1..m] of integer;
matrix2=array[1..n] of integer;
var
m1:matrix1;
m2:matrix2;
this is the method which it tried. in method 'x' mens the length of the array.
procedure writeMatrix(var data: array of integer ;x:integer);
var
j:integer;
begin
for j:=1 to x do
begin
write(data[j]:3);
end;
end;
my main method
begin
writeMatrix(m1,10);
writeMatrix(m2,10);
end.
How can i use the same this writeMatrix method to print both of the arrays.. Is there any stranded way to do it.
As I said in my comment before, your implementation is fine, but you have to put something in your matrix before printing it, or you will get a bunch of zeroes in the screen (in the best).
Try this:
program pp1;
const
m=10;
n=15;
type
matrix1=array[1..m] of integer;
matrix2=array[1..n] of integer;
var
m1:matrix1;
m2:matrix2;
procedure fillMatrix(var data:array of integer; x:integer);
var
j:integer;
begin
for j:= 1 to x do begin
data[j]:=j;
end;
end;
procedure writeMatrix(var data: array of integer; x:integer);
var
j:integer;
begin
for j:=1 to x do
begin
write(data[j]:3);
end;
end;
begin
fillMatrix(m1,10);
fillMatrix(m2,10);
writeMatrix(m1,10);
writeMatrix(m2,10);
readln;
readln;
end.
Hint: consider avoid using global variables, m1 and m2 in this case should be declared in the main program.
How can i use the same this writeMatrix method to print both of the arrays.. Is there any stranded way to do it.
Yes, there is a standard way to this. It is called conformant-array parameters. It is standardized in (level 1) of the ISO standard 7185 (Standard “Unextended” Pascal). It looks like this:
procedure print(protected matrix: array[
columnMinimum..columnMaximum: integer;
rowMinimum..rowMaximum: integer
] of integer);
const
totalWidth = 6;
var
x: type of columnMinimum;
y: type of rowMinimum;
begin
for y := rowMinimum to rowMaximum do
begin
for x := columnMinimum to columnMaximum do
begin
write(matrix[x, y]:totalWidth);
end;
writeLn;
end;
end;
It’s as if there were additional const values, but they are dynamic depending on the passed matrix. This code furthermore uses type inquiries (type of …) and the protected modifier, both defined in ISO 10206 (Extended Pascal) which builds on top of ISO 7185. In EP you could and would also consider schemata to pass such data as parameters.
In order to learn multithreading, I've created a thread inside a COM Thread (TRemoteDataModule).
This is my Component Factory:
TComponentFactory.Create(ComServer, TServerConn2, Class_ServerConn2, ciMultiInstance, tmApartment);
Inside the Thread, I didn't needed to Call CoInitialize to use TADOQuery.Create, .Open... .Exec
I read that I need to initialize the COM library on a thread before you call any of the library functions except CoGetMalloc, to get a pointer to the standard allocator, and the memory allocation functions.
But in this case, the absence of CoInitialize didn't brought me any trouble.
Is this related with Thread Model?
Where can I Find the explanation for this subject?
UPDATE:
When I say INSIDE, it means inside the COM method context:
interface
type
TWorker = class(TThread);
TServerConn2 = class(TRemoteDataModule, IServerConn2)
public
procedure Method(); safecall;
end;
implementation
procedure TServerConn2.Method();
var W: TWorker;
begin
W := TWorkerTread.Create(Self);
end;
UPDATE 2:
The TADOConnection used to connect to database are currently being created in the COM Thread context (TThread.Create constructor). Although, TADOConnection.Open and TADOQuery.Create/.Open are both being performed inside TThread.Execute .
UPDATE 3 - Simulacrum
Interface:
type
TServerConn2 = class;
TWorker = class(TThread)
private
FDB: TADOConnection;
FOwner: TServerConn2;
protected
procedure Execute; override;
public
constructor Create(Owner: TServerConn2);
destructor Destroy; override;
end;
TServerConn2 = class(TRemoteDataModule, IServerConn2)
ADOConnection1: TADOConnection;
procedure RemoteDataModuleCreate(Sender: TObject);
private
{ Private declarations }
protected
class procedure UpdateRegistry(Register: Boolean; const ClassID, ProgID: string); override;
procedure CheckException; safecall;
public
User, Pswd, Str: String;
Ok: Boolean;
end;
Implementation:
class procedure TServerConn2.UpdateRegistry(Register: Boolean; const ClassID, ProgID: string);
begin
if Register then
begin
inherited UpdateRegistry(Register, ClassID, ProgID);
EnableSocketTransport(ClassID);
EnableWebTransport(ClassID);
end else
begin
DisableSocketTransport(ClassID);
DisableWebTransport(ClassID);
inherited UpdateRegistry(Register, ClassID, ProgID);
end;
end;
{ TWorker }
constructor TWorker.Create(Owner: TServerConn2);
begin
inherited Create(False);
FreeOnTerminate := True;
FDB := TADOConnection.Create(nil);
FOwner := Owner;
end;
destructor TWorker.Destroy;
begin
FDB.Free;
FOwner.Ok := True;
inherited;
end;
procedure TWorker.Execute;
var Qry: TADOQuery;
begin
FDB.LoginPrompt := False;
FDB.ConnectionString := FOwner.Str;
FDB.Open(FOwner.User, FOwner.Pswd);
Qry := TADOQuery.Create(nil);
try
Qry.Connection := FDB;
Qry.LockType := ltReadOnly;
Qry.SQL.Text := 'SELECT TOP 1 * FROM MyTable';
Qry.Open;
finally
Qry.Free;
end;
end;
procedure TServerConn2.CheckException;
var W: TWorker;
begin
W := TWorker.Create(Self);
while not Ok do Sleep(100);
end;
procedure TServerConn2.RemoteDataModuleCreate(Sender: TObject);
begin
User := 'user';
Pswd := 'pass';
Str := ADOConnection1.ConnectionString;
end;
initialization
TComponentFactory.Create(ComServer, TServerConn2,
Class_ServerConn2, ciMultiInstance, tmApartment);
end.
UPDATE 4
The error should happen here:
function CreateADOObject(const ClassID: TGUID): IUnknown;
var
Status: HResult;
FPUControlWord: Word;
begin
asm
FNSTCW FPUControlWord
end;
Status := CoCreateInstance(ClassID, nil, CLSCTX_INPROC_SERVER or
CLSCTX_LOCAL_SERVER, IUnknown, Result);
asm
FNCLEX
FLDCW FPUControlWord
end;
if (Status = REGDB_E_CLASSNOTREG) then
raise Exception.CreateRes(#SADOCreateError) else
OleCheck(Status);
end;
By somehow (because of TComponentFactory maybe?) CoCreateInstance identifies that TWorker is in the same context than TServerConn2 and don't raise errors?
Either or both of the following might apply:
On a thread not initialized with COM all existing interface pointers keep working until you make a COM API call or otherwise require COM marshalling which then fails detecting an uninitialized thread. That is, your "didn't brought me any trouble" might actually be too early to say.
If any thread in the process calls CoInitialize[Ex] with the COINIT_MULTITHREADED flag, then that not only initializes the current thread as a member of the multi-threaded apartment, but it also says, "Any thread which has never called CoInitialize[Ex] is also part of the multi-threaded apartment." - so called impicit MTA thing
The TADOConnection used to connect to database are currently being created in the COM Thread context (TThread.Create constructor). Although, TADOConnection.Open and TADOQuery.Create/.Open are both being performed inside TThread.Execute .
That will not work, for 2 reasons:
TWorker.Create() and TWorker.Execute() will run in different thread contexts. Create() will run in the context of the thread that is calling TServerConn2.CheckException() (which will have already called CoInitialize/Ex() on itself beforehand), but Execute() will run in the context of the TThread thread instead. ADO is apartment threaded, which means its COM interfaces cannot be used across thread/apartment boundaries unless you marshal them, either via the IGlobalInterfaceTable interface or the CoMarshalInterThreadInterfaceInStream() and CoGetInterfaceAndReleaseStream() functions.
even if you did marshal the ADO interfaces, TWorker.Execute() must call CoInitialize/Ex() on itself. EVERY individual thread must initialize COM to establish its threading model before then accessing any COM interfaces. The threading model dictates how COM accesses interfaces (direct or through proxies), whether message queues are used, etc.
So the simple solution to your problem is to NOT create and use the ADO components across thread boundaries at all. Move your TADOConnection into Execute() instead:
constructor TWorker.Create(Owner: TServerConn2);
begin
inherited Create(False);
FreeOnTerminate := True;
FOwner := Owner;
end;
destructor TWorker.Destroy;
begin
FOwner.Ok := True;
inherited;
end;
procedure TWorker.Execute;
var
DB: TADOConnection;
Qry: TADOQuery;
begin
CoInitialize;
try
DB := TADOConnection.Create(nil);
try
DB.LoginPrompt := False;
DB.ConnectionString := FOwner.Str;
DB.Open(FOwner.User, FOwner.Pswd);
Qry := TADOQuery.Create(nil);
try
Qry.Connection := DB;
Qry.LockType := ltReadOnly;
Qry.SQL.Text := 'SELECT TOP 1 * FROM MyTable';
Qry.Open;
finally
Qry.Free;
end;
finally
DB.Free;
end;
finally
CoUninitialize;
end;
end;
When you create an apartment thread using TComponentFactory it calls CoInitialize and CoUnInitialize for you - it's right in the VCL source (System.Win.VCLCom.pas):
procedure TApartmentThread.Execute;
var
msg: TMsg;
Unk: IUnknown;
begin
try
CoInitialize(nil); // *** HERE
try
FCreateResult := FFactory.CreateInstanceLic(FUnkOuter, nil, FIID, '', Unk);
FUnkOuter := nil;
FFactory := nil;
if FCreateResult = S_OK then
CoMarshalInterThreadInterfaceInStream(FIID, Unk, IStream(FStream));
ReleaseSemaphore(FSemaphore, 1, nil);
if FCreateResult = S_OK then
while GetMessage(msg, 0, 0, 0) do
begin
DispatchMessage(msg);
Unk._AddRef;
if Unk._Release = 1 then break;
end;
finally
Unk := nil;
CoUninitialize; // ** AND HERE
end;
except
{ No exceptions should go unhandled }
end;
end;