Re: reference counting

[Joseph J. S. <jo...@st...>]

At 4:21 PM -0700 6/24/04, James W. Walker wrote:

>It has never seemed onerous to me.  I always know which objects are 
>picks or views, I don't have them floating around among other 
>objects.
>
>It would be dangerous to just make Q3Shared_GetReference return the 
>value it was passed for a non-shared object.  Then you might think 
>you'd be free to dispose the "new" reference.

Good point.  It just seems strange, then, that you use 
Q3Object_Dispose on both shared and non-shared objects.  More clear 
(to me) would be a Q3Shared_ReleaseReference that you call on shared 
objects, and reserve Q3Object_Dispose for non-shared objects which 
you want to immediately dispose.

At 1:29 PM +0100 6/25/04, Roger Holmes wrote:

>Its never been a problem for me either. Views and Picks are used in 
>very specific places. I would be happy if they did not inherit from 
>Q3Object at all.

I didn't realize it was just views and picks (though before I 
document that, I'll go crawl the headers to make sure).  I guess two 
exceptions to the rule isn't too hard to remember.

But actually, I'd be happier if they didn't inherit from TQ3Object 
too, and if TQ3Object then had all the semantics of TQ3SharedObject. 
Then we wouldn't have any exceptions, and the compiler would catch it 
if you tried to get or release a reference to something not 
reference-counted.

Oh well, thanks all for your help in clarifying this.

Best,
- Joe

-- 
,------------------------------------------------------------------.
|    Joseph J. Strout         Check out the Mac Web Directory:     |
|    jo...@st...           http://www.macwebdir.com/            |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'