On Mon, Nov 07, 2011 at 12:34:15PM +0000, Adam Spiers wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Graham Percival > <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote: > > I doubt it. Just upload a new issue. > > So then we would have *three* Rietveld issues tracking the > same thing.
The google code issue is our pointer. Rietveld is our memory. We have one object in memory (the rietveld issue you're going to upload), and two objects which have been de-referenced (Janek's and Carl's uploads). Our machine has infinite memory (because it's run on google servers, and they have more bandwidth than god, and also more processing power than the NSA [1]). Garbage collection happens whenever Carl and Janek get around to it. Stop wasting time -- both mine and yours -- trying to handle the memory manually. Unless you're writing kernel or DSP code, programmers outgrew that in the 90s. We're not going to lose the de-referenced pointers, so it's not a memory leak. capiche? [1] this is almost certainly false, but it's such a nice pithy quote that I couldn't resist inventing it. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel