> 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.
I feel at least partly responsible for any confusion here. I had
mis-understood that the forget() command issued on a timeout object, with no
other object storing a reference to the timeout, would clear/void/destroy
the timeout - like it does with MIAWs. I had made some correlation between
the syntactical similarities of the two implementations.
My mistake for not VOIDing, as well as forgetting, the timeout's instance.
-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!]
