On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 11:52:08AM -0400, Derek Atkins was heard to remark: > I'm not 100% convinced it's the order that matters... I'm thinking > that during book_end() the various objects should just free() themselves > of memory and not worry about keeping themselves balanced. In other
Yes. I agree. > >> As you can see from the following trace this causes a memory access > >> failure because transactions are kept in balance even when we're > >> destroying the book, so it's trying to scrub against an > >> already-destroyed commodity. That's a bug > > Why do we need to scrub things we're just trying to get rid of? Don't need to that's a bug. It would be nice to do them in order too. The order should be: > > * Business objects / SX templates > > * Lots > > * Splits / Transactions > > * Accounts / Price-DB > > * Commodities > > * Book > > * Session state --linas -- pub 1024D/01045933 2001-02-01 Linas Vepstas (Labas!) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP Key fingerprint = 8305 2521 6000 0B5E 8984 3F54 64A9 9A82 0104 5933 _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
