On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 12:09 -0400, Andrew Stitcher wrote: > On Tue, 2015-08-18 at 07:38 -0400, Rafael Schloming wrote: > > Nice writeup! > > I agree. > > Andrew > > [Did you make a pass through the doc to ensure that the claimed API > doc > is actually there? that is, doc on ownership and scope?] >
No, will add to my TODO list :) Some of it definitely is but I don't know if is uniform and complete. The existing doc does not refer to refcounts, it talks of pointers "becoming invalid". I think that is the correct language - we don't want to give the impression that refcounts are mandatory. The discussion of refcounting can clarify that "becomes invalid" means the implied _reference_ becomes invalid. The actual object might not be freed immediately (with or without user refcounts because of containment) but in any case it is no longer your business. You must treat that pointer or the implied reference as invalid or you are deep in "works in tests, core dumps in production" territory. Thanks for the feedback! Alan.
