On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:48:17 -0000, Martin Simmons wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 14:20:38 +0100 (CET), "Alexander Mai" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Alexander> I think you're right. > Alexander> Right now I'm committing some change to CVS, which is > Alexander> not complete yet, but seems to get your example right... > >Thanks. BTW, isn't there a memory leak now? I don't see what would free the >result of XtNewString if the resource is set a second time.
Leak? I think I introduced just the "opposite" (bogus free()) and tried to fix this in a second commit... A new free call was added to Destroy(). >Looking at this again, it isn't clear to me why the value slot is needed at all, >because the text itself is held in Text_Source. Maybe it can simply be set to >NULL by SetValues(), i.e. just used to detect when the resource is being >modified? (Possibly Xt provides a better way of doing such 'virtual' >resources.) > >__Martin That was probably meant by some comment in the source about the "obsolete value" stuff. It isn't obsolete, but that comment probably indicated what you're saying. --- Alexander Mai [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Lesstif mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://terror.hungry.com/mailman/listinfo/lesstif
