Would it make sense to have the constructors own their arguments even when they fail? That is, have them free the arguments if they can't constructor an object? Or have a variant of the constructor functions that does behave this way?
Jeremy On 10/25/05, Neal Norwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/25/05, Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Should be fixed. > > Thanks. > > > While poking around I noticed a large number of theoretical > > leaks. Code like: > > > > return Delete(expr_list, LINENO(n)); > > > > when it should be: > > > > r = Delete(expr_list, LINENO(n)); > > if (!r) > > asdl_free_free(expr_list); > > return r; > > > > How tedious. > > Yup, I think I got a bunch of outstanding changes for some of those, > but there are many, many more. > > n > _______________________________________________ Compiler-sig mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/compiler-sig
