Me, me, ... I'll volunteer.
Unfortunately, your question "what happens if you try to reference
props via the stored value in an object after you destroy the object"
doesn't make sense. There are two cases.
Case 1) (The typical case) Assume a parent script like this:
property prop1
property prop2
on new me, someParameter1, someParameter2
prop1 = someParameter1
prop2 = someParameter2
return me
end
You create the object like this:
someObjectReference = new(script "someParentScript", someValue,
someOtherValue) -- sets the refcount to 1
Later, you destroy the object like this:
someObjectReference = VOID -- the "ref count" goes down from 1 to 0.
This means "there are no more variables that point to this block of
memory". Director's garbage collector then frees up the memory
allocated for this object. You no longer have any object reference
to this object, so it is not possible for you to attempt to access
any of its (former) properties.
Case 2) Lets say you have a parent script like this, in the new
handler, you to store a copy of "me" into a property variable "pMe" -
as Kerry originally suggested earler before recanting :)
-- someParentScript:
property pMe
on new me
pMe = me -- this sets the "ref count" to 1
return me
end
And you create it with the following line
someObjectReference = new(script "someParentScript") -- this sets
the "ref count" to 2
Then later, as you say, you destroy the object like this:
someObjectReference = VOID -- in an attempt to the object
But ... the object isn't destroyed because pMe still holds a
reference to the object. The ref count just goes from 2 down to 1.
Now, unfortunately, you have an "orphaned" object. There is this
object lying around taking up memory, but you cannot get to it
because there while there still is an object reference - there is no
way you can get to it.
Irv
At 9:34 AM +0200 10/18/01, Chris Aernoudt wrote:
>"me" is the same stuff as "this" in other proglangs -> pointer to the
>encapsulating object, no?
>So it's pretty useless to store it, because it won't change - I never tried,
>but I even think this might be a dangerous thing to do - what happens if you
>try to access props of an object via the stored value after the object has
>been destroyed?
>Any volunteers? :)
>
>> What Kerry says here is true. But why would you do that? Me is
>> always me whereever you use me in any method (handler) of the object.
> > There is no reason to have a property to keep another copy of me.
>
--
Lingo / Director / Shockwave development for all occasions.
(Home-made Lingo cooked up fresh every day just for you.)
[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!]
