Hi Ross,
My thoughts are that
- if the various objects of a program are highly independent (a must
in good oo programming)
a) it is very dangerous to free an object from one part of the
program: others won't know it and may create exceptions by accessing a
no longer existing object and its methods
b) so, I would definitely not free the object but have a way to
signal to other owners of reference of this object that it is no
longer visible / usable
So, I would also rather prefer your isVisible() proposal rather than
the current isHidden() because I share your idea that isVisible is not
at all the contrary of isHidden()
regards
didier
On Jan 17, 3:06 pm, Rossko <[email protected]> wrote:
> It does seem that .isHidden() as a concept is meaningless after
> overlay removal, so any value is moot.
>
> Perhaps what's needed is an .isVisible() property, which isn't the
> opposite of .isHidden() at all.
> I'll bet there's more than one version of that already available out
> there ...
>
> cheers, Ross K
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google Maps API" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Maps-API?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
