Thank you for your addition to the thread, Mark. It was quite helpful!
:)
Mark Winterhalder wrote:
On 5/26/07, Steven Sacks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought objects could not delete
themselves, and if you delete an object with a function and store a
reference
On 5/26/07, Steven Sacks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought objects could not delete
themselves, and if you delete an object with a function and store a
reference to that function before you delete it, that function is
orphaned and will never be cleaned up by the GC
Ok I get it now.
By removing all references to the functions of class B, even though
class B is telling class A to delete class B, after the delete fires and
the thread is done, arguments falls out of scope, all references to
class B are gone so the GC will pick it up on the next sweep.
This
Well here's my concern.
I've got multiple class B that are instantiated by class A.
Class A assigns a delegate of a method in class A as a listener to each
class B's complete event using EventDispatcher.
When class A receives the complete event from a class B, it needs to
check to see if cla
Actually, the output makes perfect sense.
The object foo was only storing a reference to the unnamed function that
traces "I still exist".
When you called delete on foo, you only deleted the reference and not the
unnamed function. It is NOT orphaned because you previously assigned bar to
the same
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought objects could not delete
themselves, and if you delete an object with a function and store a
reference to that function before you delete it, that function is
orphaned and will never be cleaned up by the GC. Am I wrong?
I have a trivial test to demonstra
6 matches
Mail list logo
