Re: destroying is not freeing, is it?

[Tristan Van Berkom <vantr touchtunes com>]

franciszek holop wrote:
> so i looked in the .h file, and saw that objects have
> a destroyed bit.  so i tried the way you see down there.
> i would like to ask, is this a correct approach?

If you free a piece of memory, it is unsafe to use it
afterwords:

/****************************************/
gchar *string = g_strdup_printf("Hello World");
g_free(string);
if (string) g_print(string); // <-- UNSAFE !!!
/****************************************/

Probably wiser to use a free'ing line like this:

/****************************************/
string = (g_free(string), NULL);
/****************************************/

Moral of story:
   you cant play with the destroy bit of a piece of non-allocated
memory, its UNSAFE (it /should/ segfault, but usualy "Hello World"
stays on the heap untill further allocations).


    Now, I'm not so sure what the gtk+-1.2 allocation modal looks
like (in respect with gtk_widget_destroy), but I think that
the object isn't destroyed (free'd) untill all its references
are released (gtk_object_unref). So if you are trying to destroy;
say; a button; it may not get destroyed untill it is removed from
its parent GtkContainer or its parent GtkContainer gets destroyed
itself.


HTH,
                              -Tristan