At 14:22 +0200 23/09/01, Chris Aernoudt wrote:
>I get cranky when I have to work weekends..... :)
>I meant not getting rid of all references....
Sure, *if* you don't get rid of'em, but exactly where was it that you
felt, that there were dangling references?
If you have two objects; object A holding the only reference to object B.
Then if you clear the last reference to A, it is cleared, and it's
properties are cleared, and so are object B.
Is this sloppy?
Would you rather first clear the property of A holding B, before
"forgetting" A?
Is that it? Is it that which you find sloppy?
The end result is reliably and undeniably the same, so how's it sloppy?
That aside, object hierarchies are usually more complex, and involves
sending a destroy message to an object before loosing it, but that's
another discussion.
It's the same with timeoutObjects, you shouldn't have to clear it's
target, before loosing it, unless you know you have created further
references (or don't know if you haven't, but that would be sloppy,
it's not the other way around)
And *if* it turns out that there is bug in the implementation of
timeoutObjects, that requires clearing targets explicitly, then it's
the implementation of timeoutObjects that's sloppy, and should be
fixed, but it surely wouldn't be malpractice to expect them to work
properly.
Besides, if I understand the discussions so far, there haven't been
made valid claims that timeoutObjects are buggy yet.
Explanation?
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!]
