Why bother manually removing the reference to the timer's listeners? Assmuing only the timer has reference to those listeners, once the timer is deemed to be GC'ed (which will happen when its containing uic gets GC'ed after it's removed from parent), the listeners will also be GC'ed (since they can no longer be traversed from the root reference.)
If the timer is not the sole reference to those listeners, then you dont want to GC them anyway. On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Paul Andrews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > LOL, yes, I did copy and paste but forgot to edit. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Fotis Chatzinikos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 29, 2008 2:10 PM > *Subject:* Re: [flexcoders] Re: How to get an object to delete itself? > > 99% he meant : > > this.owner.removeChild(this); > > synonymous to: > > this.parent.removeChild(this); > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Amy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> --- In [email protected], "Paul Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > >> > this.parent.removeChild(this); >> > >> > and >> > >> > this.parent.removeChild(this); >> > >> > are synonomous (except for popups, where you need to use >> this.parent.removeChild(this) ). >> >> Anyone else confused by this? I'm seeing the exact same statement >> (this.parent.removeChild(this)) three times, so it seems to me that of >> COURSE the first two are synonymous, as they are identical, and the >> third shouldn't actually be an exception, since it's the same as the >> first two. Am I missing something? >> >> > > > -- > Fotis Chatzinikos, Ph.D. > Founder, > Phinnovation > [EMAIL PROTECTED], > > >
