We wouldn't want to do that. If your application is keeping the data around,
its very convenient and efficient to be able to just call this method and
get back something you can store. I don't think we need to make life harder
for those folks who understand the issues, in order to protect people who
don't.
--------------------------
Dean Roddey
The CIDLib C++ Frameworks
Charmed Quark Software
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.charmedquark.com
"Why put off until tomorrow what you can
put off until the day after tomorrow?"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: Deleting char* returned from DOMString.transcode() in VC++ 6. 0
> > It seems as though the cleaner way to solve this problem is to
> > provide a
> > function from within the .DLL which de-allocates the memory
> > allocated by the
> > .DLL. This gets rid of compiler run-time errors such as threading,
> > debugging, statically dynamically built libraries, etc.
>
> The cleanest solution would be to remove DOMString::transcode()
> from the public API. There are other ways of transcoding that don't
> leak memory, have better control over transcoding, and don't
> produce run-time errors.
>
> --Bill
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
