On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 22:10 +0100, Luca Bruno wrote:
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Tal Hadad
tal_hd-pkbjnfxxiarbdgjk7y7...@public.gmane.org wrote:
That would be a memory leak.
No it wouldn't:
If the if statement is false, then it should delete it in the end of the
block.
You
That would be a memory leak.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Tal Hadad tal...@hotmail.com wrote:
What about:
if (foo) {
bar = (owned) ar;
}
// what now
This behavior is confusing.
It would be unowned, even if in if statement, just like I suggest.
Tal
Date: Tue, 7 Jan
That would be a memory leak.
No it wouldn't:
If the if statement is false, then it should delete it in the end of the
block.
You might afraid the complicity of valac calculation.
That could be resolved - using two C variables - one for owned and one for
unowned.
The owned always deleted at the
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Tal Hadad tal...@hotmail.com wrote:
That would be a memory leak.
No it wouldn't:
If the if statement is false, then it should delete it in the end of the
block.
You might afraid the complicity of valac calculation.
That could be resolved - using two C
Hi Tal,
On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 07:46 +0200, Tal Hadad wrote:
The user might use ar varible later and it will crush he's application.
If he was lucky enough, he would realize that ar is null.
It's not easy to find that this line causing it.
Risking dangling pointers is much worse than null
On 07/01/2014 06:46, Tal Hadad wrote:
This case trigger me a question I wanted to ask before.
Why transforming ownership is nulling the original variable?
Instead of nulling, maybe just change variable to behave as unowned.
You might say that there is a problem in my solution, like this code:
Just wanted to give everyone a head's-up about a change that appeared
in Vala 0.23. Previously you could do this in Vala:
uint8[] ar = new uint8[10];
// ... fill ar with interesting bytes ...
process((owned) ar, ar.length);
... where process() takes an array and a length field (sometimes
This case trigger me a question I wanted to ask before.
Why transforming ownership is nulling the original variable?
Instead of nulling, maybe just change variable to behave as unowned.
You might say that there is a problem in my solution, like this code:
uint8[] ar = new uint8[10];
if
