On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 14:12:45 +0200, Giovanni Bajo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 12:41 +0100, Phil Thompson wrote: >> On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:53:41 +0200, "Arve Knudsen" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > How does one normally treat references returned by SIP-wrapped C++ >> > objects? I just determined a segmentation fault in my program resulted >> > from an object first being obtained as a reference (in the C++ sense) >> > from a C++ method, and then destroyed with the parent object. Does one >> > normally keep in mind that the object dies implicitly with its C++ >> > parent, or is there a way to have SIP give you copies rather than >> > borrowed references? >> >> I will probably change SIP to make a copy when the reference is const. I >> think this fixes most of the problem areas although it does introduce an >> incompatibility. > > Maybe there could be an annotation to control this behaviour? I think > both approaches are equally good, so the best solution is probably to > make the SIP user choose.
Definitely. The decision is whether to make the modified behaviour the default. Phil _______________________________________________ PyQt mailing list [email protected] http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
