Not so. Check the help on free. It is perfectly safe as long as issues and terrorists were set to nil first. I think the compiler shows warnings if you don't anyway. I could have also explicitly checked to see if they were assigned in the finally but don't generally bother as this is what free does anyway. I am willing to concede that calling destroy would be bad though 8).
Paul -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nahum.Wild Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2004 4:08 p.m. To: 'NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List' Subject: RE: [DUG] try..finally : Which way is best? If issues fails then the finally will try to free terrorists, which will probably cause another exception. :o) Nahum. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Paul Needham > Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2004 15:59 p.m. > To: 'NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List' > Subject: RE: [DUG] try..finally : Which way is best? > > > How about..... > > issues := nil; > terrorists := nil; > changes := TStringList.create; > try > issues := TIssuesList.create; > terrorists := THardToFind.create; > > ... > > finally > terrorists.free; > issues.free; > changes.free; > end; > > Paul > DBSolutions > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Nahum.Wild > Sent: Thursday, 4 March 2004 3:37 p.m. > To: 'NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi List' > Subject: [DUG] try..finally : Which way is best? > > Ok so this is something that has bugged me for ages, partly because I > don't > know and partly because I can't be bother trying to figure it out. > > is the following code ok? or should I give each it's own try..finally? > > -- > > changes := TStringList.create; > issues := TIssuesList.create; > terrorists := THardToFind.create; > try > > // stuff is done, planes flown. That type of things. > > finally > terrorists.free; > issues.free; > changes.free; > end; > > -- > > I mean what could go wrong in the TStringList.create constructor for > example? It's not like there should be anything much in there that > could go > wrong anyway? Because if it does except the destructor will be > immediately > called - learnt that one the hard way many years ago. As a > general rule > of > thumb I don't put anything significant in a constructor for my own > classes - > that's what init or setup methods are for. > > For the record I've never done it this way, I've always given > each their > own > try..finally. > > Thoughts anyone? > > > > Nahum Wild > Software Innovator & Process Consultant > IFE > PayGlobal > > _______________________________________________ > Delphi mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi > > _______________________________________________ > Delphi mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi > _______________________________________________ Delphi mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi _______________________________________________ Delphi mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ns3.123.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi
