All,
I'm jumping in way late here but I thought I'd throw this out there, the definition of
"forget()" in the Lingo Dictionary (I just double-checked the D8.5 docs for this
quote):
This timeout object function removes the given timeoutObject from the timeoutList, and
prevents it from sending further timeout events.
Notice that this definition says nothing about whether or not the item is cleared from
memory, it is only removed from the timeout list preventing it from recieving it's
periodic events. Therefore if you really want to remove it from memory then you must
remove all valid pointers to the object as with all other objects, meaning you have to
VOID any references to the timeout object.
Does that make sense or do you still think there's a bug in here somewhere? I'm going
to scan over this thread to make sure I haven't missed something but after reading the
last two or three posts I thought I'd share the above.
Cheers,
Tom
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jakob Hede Madsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 1:47 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: <lingo-l> MIAW does not open twice
>
>
> At 18:40 +1200 19/09/01, Sean Wilson wrote:
> > > An object referenced by a timeout only seems to get destroyed
> >> properly when
> >> the timeout's target is voided, but not when the timeout
> is just simply
> >> forgotten.
> >
> >Hi Luke,
> >
> >Yes, this is what we have both noticed too. Do you consider
> this rates as a
> >"heads-up" or do I hear "bug"? Did you notify MM so that, at least, a
> >technote can be generated?
> >
> >I also did a quick test examining the freeBytes, and the
> value displayed
> >definately dropped on a continuous basis when creating a
> timeout referenced
> >object and having it auto-destruct during a frame-related
> event. But I was a
> >bit leery of reading too much into it as when the freeBytes
> approached the
> >freeBlock within such-and-such an amount, I'd suddenly see
> the freeBytes
> >jump up again.
>
> Which makes me think:
> Is the target *never* garbage collected, or is the garbage collection
> process of timeOutTargets for some reason deferred more than usual?
> Jakob
>
>
> [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
> http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list,
> email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
>
[To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to
http://www.penworks.com/LUJ/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list,
email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
