On Sun, 2008-06-22 at 12:41 +0100, Phil Thompson wrote: > On Sun, 22 Jun 2008 12:53:41 +0200, "Arve Knudsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > How does one normally treat references returned by SIP-wrapped C++ > > objects? I just determined a segmentation fault in my program resulted > > from an object first being obtained as a reference (in the C++ sense) > > from a C++ method, and then destroyed with the parent object. Does one > > normally keep in mind that the object dies implicitly with its C++ > > parent, or is there a way to have SIP give you copies rather than > > borrowed references? > > I will probably change SIP to make a copy when the reference is const. I > think this fixes most of the problem areas although it does introduce an > incompatibility.
Maybe there could be an annotation to control this behaviour? I think both approaches are equally good, so the best solution is probably to make the SIP user choose. -- Giovanni Bajo Develer S.r.l. http://www.develer.com _______________________________________________ PyQt mailing list PyQt@riverbankcomputing.com http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/mailman/listinfo/pyqt
