Hello again, IIRC the object wasn't deleted to allow it to be reused, but I'm not sure > if that > was really correct (the docs aren't clear about this). > Unlikely. IMO the object was clearly meant to be removed, but since the used PdfReference is destroyed in the process, that never applied. See the last two lines of the function, it is even stated in the comment:
> // delete the PdfObject in the file > delete this->GetObject()->GetOwner()->RemoveObject( ref ); > Conclusion: Please wait for my acceptance of your first patch with some > cosmetic > and comment changes (I first need to test it), I reject v2 and v3 herewith. > All right. I understand the reasoning behind rejecting v2 and v3. I would like to see v2 being implemented for v0.9.7, but I fear the info will be forgotten until then ^^. Greetings, F.E. Am Sa., 6. Apr. 2019 um 20:47 Uhr schrieb Matthew Brincke <ma...@mailbox.org >: > Hello F.E., hello all, > > On 03 April 2019 at 12:11 "F. E." <exler7...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello again, > > I created two alternative patches for this issue, since the first one > feels > > rather ugly. With patch v2, I switched the PdfReference parameter to > > call-by-value instead of call-by-reference. > > I'd like to refrain from changing API before 0.9.7 unless it's really > necessary > to fix a bug, here it isn't (see your first patch, which I'm going to > accept > after some testing going OK, from reading it it's fine). > > With patch v3, I kept the parameter as it is, but passed a local copy of > the > > required PdfReference to the function. > > That looks clean (and the comment I'd like to put into the first one) but > there's > one problem: The method called is public so all users would need to change > their > calls to fix the problem, so that's clearly impractical (+ docs'd need to > change). > > > With either of the three patches, the annotations are deleted without > leftover > > objects, as it should be. > > IIRC the object wasn't deleted to allow it to be reused, but I'm not sure > if that > was really correct (the docs aren't clear about this). > > Conclusion: Please wait for my acceptance of your first patch with some > cosmetic > and comment changes (I first need to test it), I reject v2 and v3 herewith. > > > Greetings, F.E. > > > > Best regards, mabri > > > _______________________________________________ > Podofo-users mailing list > Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users >
_______________________________________________ Podofo-users mailing list Podofo-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/podofo-users
