Re: [Re: gobject weak references]

[Alex Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On 18 Sep 2001, Murray Cumming wrote:

> Sven Neumann <sven gimp org> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Murray Cumming <Murray_Cumming betaresearch de> writes:
> > 
> > > Actually I think that your example is a bit hackish. I would prefer to
> > > use an ID that's passed through data or is stored in the object's
> > > quark-data-thing mechanism. If there's no absolute need to use an
> > > invalid pointer then we shouldn't give people the opportunity.
> > 
> > I don't think it is hackish at all. The pointer is not invalid, it's
> > only not pointing to a functional GObject anymore since the GObject
> > is in the process of being finalized when the notifier is being called.
> > Why would you want to add the overhead of an ID mechanism if there
> > already is a perfectly valid ID, the memory address of the GObject?
> 
> Oh, OK, if the memory hasn't been freed yet then I have no problem with using
> the pointer.

In what way does it matter if it has been freed or not?

/ Alex