This is generally safe, since objects are reference counted. Even if the
async method keeps executing in the background, the async method will
decrease it's reference when it no longer needs the object (this is done
automatically for you), in which case the object will be freed (that if
there is no
Is the following safe? Will the argument be
freed when xx returns, but async_method is still
in the background?
void xx () {
async_method (new SomeObject ());
}
What about the "this" argument in the following;
is it safe?
void xx () {
var y = new SomeOject ();
y.async_
Hi!
I've encountered a weird bug/feature which is breaking everything.
Here's a simple testcase:
namespace Test {
public extern struct Value {
void *ptr;
public extern unowned GLib.Date get_date ();
}
int main(string args[]) {
Test.Value v = Test.Value();
Date n
Here is the adjusted file with all of code of why I am using "out"
valac -g --pkg libsoup-2.4 --pkg gee-1.0 --pkg gnet-2.0 --pkg
json-glib-1.0 --save-temps --thread mywebapp.vala
https://gist.github.com/922304
mywebapp.vala:11.29-11.39: error: No reference to be transferred
Soup.Message m
Abderrahim,
1) msg = (owned) msg;
Results in "No reference to be transferred"
As to why I am using "out" is because when I was changing the
"msg.response_headers" and the changes where not being reflected back
when I was finished using msg.
2) public string get_session_id (unowned Soup
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Joseph Montanez
> wrote:
> > I got it, I needed
> >
> > public void dostuff (out unowned Soup.Message msg)
> >
> > and then I could do:
> > dostuff(out msg);
> >
No you shouldn't. You probably need to transfer ownership as in:
public void dostuff (out uno
Actually when I access anything from "msg", it just segment faults :(
https://gist.github.com/922060
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Joseph Montanez
wrote:
> I got it, I needed
>
> public void dostuff (out unowned Soup.Message msg)
>
> and then I could do:
> dostuff(out msg);
>
> On Thu, Apr 14
