> I guess, I always believed "forget" to mean the same as "destroy", in
> the sense that the forgotten object was actually internally
> dismantled, as I do with my own objects during destruction, but this
> seems not to be the case.
I too was under this illusion.
> It's not a bug, and it's not a problem, "forget" is simply a somewhat
> misleading or confusing term.
>
> The operational information is that if you follow the ordinary rules
> for reference-count and garbage-collection, then every should work as
> expected.
I was explicitly voiding the timeoutObject's target. Having just revisited
the example I was working with, setting the timeout's parameter (as passed
to the childObject in a relayed frame-event) to 0 after the forget() command
works as well. ie:
on exitFrame me, oTimeout
-- other stuff
oTimeout.forget()
oTimeout = 0
end
I now have to re-visit a bunch of old projects and make sure this is being
done.
-Sean.
[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!]
