On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Tal Hadad <[email protected]> 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 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. > Ok now this makes sense, but it's not worth in my opinion. I've never encountered such a use case personally. > > 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. > I don't think so, I never had such a use case. _______________________________________________ vala-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
