At 9:23 +1200 24/09/01, Sean Wilson wrote:
> > 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.
Err-- well, if I understand this correctly, then actually - no - on
both accounts.
Forget does NOT cause any "destruction" of a MIAW, it merely makes it
invisible, and removes its reference from the windowList.
Just as with a timeoutObject, apart from the visible-thing.
And you shouldn't have to void the target of a timeoutObject, before
you "forget" the timeoutObject, unless it is because of some specific
mutual-references, or such that have you created.
When the timeoutObject is garbage-collected its target-property is
cleared along with all the properties in its property-stack. This is
evident in the example I showed earlier, although you have to know
what to look for in the example.
Actually, if you just go back and read Thomas Higgins' mail, you will
see it explained in few and obvious words.
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!]
