In message <001d01c1516a$98c07ee0$7f03ef12@MLAMBERT> Michel Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're quite right that it doesn't, but neither does anything else > > that creates temporary strings in a different encoding ;-) > > In my day-or-two-old parrot copy, the only other code that uses the > transcoding table only uses it with the second param != null (ie, save into > existing string). That's true, but if you look they've only just allocated the string on the previous line... Which is actually silly but still. Thinking about it though, that is my code as well so it doesn't really prove anything very much ;-) So the question is, are strings subject to GC or not? If they aren't then I'll knock up a patch to add the string_destroy calls. Tom -- Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.compton.nu
