Re: question about destructors

[Salvador E. T. <sal...@in...>]

On 28/02/06 16:51, Petr B=EChan wrote:

>Is there any reason why TGroup::~TGroup() doesn't call shutDown()? I'd
>post it as bug, but it's so obvious that more likely there is some
>really good reason that I don't see (wrong chaining of destructors with
>some non-gcc compilers? I don't have too much experience with
>portability in obscure environments, just gcc on linux and mingw). By
>looking into other TV clones on the net it may be legacy from the
>original borland source, but you said you don't aim to be 100%
>compatible and besides changing it shouldn't bring any incompatibility.
> =20
>


>I know TV from ancient times when I worked in pascal. Recently I needed
>to code UI for console applications so I looked for c++ counterpart to
>TV I already knew, found this and did what I remembered as correct:
>{    TDialog *dlg;
>    TProgram::deskTop->execView(dlg);
>    delete dlg; }
>After coding 4 dialogs I thought that it's time to wonder if I have
>memory management right, and of course I found that each dialog instance=

>uses ~4kB memory which is not returned. And after little searching I
>found that the correct way is to call CLY_destroy(dlg) instead of
>standard c++ way of using destructors.
> =20
>

Yes.

>Even Borland manual for destructor TGroup.done() (for pascal, I don't
>have one for c++ TV) says "Hides the group using Hide, disposes of each
>subview in the group, and finally calls the Done destructor inherited
>from TView" in the description of TGroup destructor. As simple fix I
>added the call to shutDown() into ~TView() and ~TGroup and the basic
>dialogs now work as I expected (I didn't have lot of time to test it yet=

>- it just compiles, runs and valgrind reports no leaks in views). I can
>get a patch together if you are interested, after fixing rest of
>shutDown()'s. And testing it a bit.
> =20
>

The need for destroy is because you could share the same objects between =

different "containers", you could also have static items in a collection =

(making destroy incorrect).
In general: you need to use destroy when you need to delete an object=20
and what it contains, some times you don't want to destroy the contained =

objects.

SET

--=20
Salvador Eduardo Tropea (SET). (Electronics Engineer)
Visit my home page: http://welcome.to/SetSoft or
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Vista/6552/
Alternative e-mail: se...@co... se...@ie...=20
Address: Curapaligue 2124, Caseros, 3 de Febrero
Buenos Aires, (1678), ARGENTINA Phone: +(5411) 4759 0013