MacArthur, Ian (SELEX GALILEO, UK) wrote: >> This is exactly why mike suggested to implement release() in >> the Fl_Image class I think. >> This way, we could avoid completely the need of deleting images. >> a release base impl. would just delete himself in the non >> shared image impl., >> the shared image would do what it does now. > > Implementing "release" in the base-class would at least make it > consistent. > > Then what we tell/educate users is "always release an image object, > never call delete on it" and things will work for all classes. > > Is that right?
Yes, that's the idea - but I wouldn't like this. "Don't do that" is a bad advice, especially if there are better ways to do it in a more "natural" way. See my new thread "Fl_Shared_Image thoughts". Albrecht _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
