Hi Nathan,
On 1/16/07, Nathan Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm certainly confused. Is it simply that you don't like doing a
> .get() when passing in an object?
Yes, exactly.
To me, get() implies the criminal act of circumventing
reference-counting to get a raw/direct C pointer to an object
which then becomes vulnerable to being deleted.
Shooting someone, stealing something thats a criminal act.
Passing a c pointer isn't a criminal act, its not circumventing
anything, its just passing a c pointer. If an application developer
did try to call delete just see what happens... Please do.
What you'll find is that the OSG has protected destructors on all but
handful of reference counted classes, the compiler will won't even
compile a delete to such objects, this includes all scene graph
classes.
So to me it really seems like you are worrying about a non problem,
wasting your time and effort.
Robert.
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://openscenegraph.net/mailman/listinfo/osg-users
http://www.openscenegraph.org/
