> 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 end of the block, the trick is that this C
variable is
set to null when transferring ownership.
If an owned "bar" was defined outside the block, I already said you're right
and it
should be null in when outside the block(e.g. class field), since there's no
way to
automate this safely.
I know it may add a minor complicity, but it just seems rational to use an
object with
"unowned" access after transferring it to something else, since passing
ownership
privilege doesn't means forgetting a reference.
I suppose that most Vala programmer solve this(including me) problem by saving
this variable in different unowned variable, but this is not
intuitive(especially for a
new language) and may raise many bugs.
Tal
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:04:16 +0100
Subject: Re: [Vala] Change in 0.23.1 for array ownership and .length parameter
From: lethalma...@gmail.com
To: tal...@hotmail.com
CC: vala-list@gnome.org
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 2014 09:24:40 +0100
> From: lethalma...@gmail.com
> To: vala-list@gnome.org
> Subject: Re: [Vala] Change in 0.23.1 for array ownership and .length
> parameter
>
> 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:
> >
> > uint8[] ar = new uint8[10];
> > if (some_method() != NULL)
> > another_method((owned)ar);
> > ...
> >
> > Since after the "if" case, valac can't determinate if ownership was
> > given(at compile time).
> >
> > Despite of this, nulling "ar" variable is even worse in my opinion and it's
> > error prone.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > I suggest solution for the last problem from valac side - treat ar as
> > unowned after the
> > (owned) operator, even if this operator was in "if" block!
> >
> > That way, "ar" won't be null, and the user could use it later only as
> > unowned.
> >
> > And for class/struct fields - I do accept that they must be nulled when
> > transferring ownership.
>
> What about:
>
> if (foo) {
> bar = (owned) ar;
> }
> // what now
>
> This behavior is confusing.
> _______________________________________________
> vala-list mailing list
> vala-list@gnome.org
> https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
_______________________________________________
vala-list mailing list
vala-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
--
www.debian.org - The Universal Operating System
_______________________________________________
vala-list mailing list
vala-list@gnome.org
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
