Melchior FRANZ wrote: > (0) removeChild() didn't *really* remove the node, but only mark it as REMOVED > (which is OK and done for performance reasons)
Well, that's the bug certainly. In fact, a quick grep through the property code shows that flagging the node as removed is, in fact, the sole usage of the REMOVED type. This thing is just a fancy noop. :) > Yes, no problem. But please, all of you: stay away from the crap > that is called "removeChild()". It's broken. Better add a bug > message there, or even abort(). Well, yeah, or just, y'know, fix it. :) It shouldn't be hard: just rewrite removeChild to actually remove it, and we're done. I have a hard time seeing why we should want to write around this API: this is a sane call with a very clear meaning, it just has a bug. Bugs are meant to be fixed, not avoided. Andy _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [email protected] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
