On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:07 AM, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 May 2009 06:47:23 Yu Feng wrote:
> > > I read about HashTable<>.full, but this won't help in my case, since I
> > > can't seem to access the respective free function from Vala.
> >
> > One workaround is to declare the corresponding free function generated
> > by vala as an external static member of the compact class.
>
> Right, while being cumbersome, this seems to work:
>
> [Compact]
> public class Foo
> {
> public Foo()
> {
> message( "foo created" );
> }
> ~Foo()
> {
> message( "foo destructed" );
> }
> [CCode (cname = "foo_free")]
> public extern void free();
> }
>
> ...
>
> foos = new HashTable<string,Foo>.full(str_hash, str_equal, g_free,
> Foo.free);
>
> > > What can i do? Is Gee handling this better?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Not quite -- at least not with compact classes:
>
Sorry for the incomplete message..
>
> x.vala:24.28-24.30: error: duplicating Foo instance, use unowned variable
> or
> explicitly invoke copy method
> foos = new HashMap<string,Foo>( str_hash, str_equal );
> ^^^
>
> Using a weak Foo here gets it to compile, but defeats the purpose as the
> instance would get unref'd right after it gets out of scope.
Does it work if you pass your instance with (owned) on the insertion method
of the HashMap? Te ownership will be passed into the HashMap and duplicating
is avoided.
.
Yu
>
> :M:
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Vala-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
>
_______________________________________________
Vala-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
