Re: Floating references
- From: Chris Vine <vine35792468 gmail com>
- To: gtk-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Floating references
- Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 20:41:25 +0100
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:23:09 +0200 (CEST)
Rafal Luzynski <digitalfreak lingonborough com> wrote:
6.06.2017 11:50 Stefan Salewski <mail ssalewski de> wrote:
[...]
But I was wondering, why for newly created objects ref count is not
just zero, so when the element is put into a container it is just
increased to one.
So there must be a reason why it can not work this way. Of course
when ref count drops to zero the element is deleted. But when a
newly created element just has ref count zero, where is the
problem?
Let's consider a system where a newly created object has ref count
zero. Assume that you have created an object but changed your mind and
decided you want to delete it.
Then just do what g_object_unref() would do, were the count to be 1:
finalize/free any members requiring it and then free the object itself.
g_object_unref() raises an assert
if ref_count is not > 0. But OK, this assert would have to be removed.
So having ref_count == 0 you can't delete the object because ref_count
is already 0. Or if you allow ref_count to be decremented, as
ref_count is of type guint it would become 0xFFFFFFFF rather than -1.
Then assume that g_object_ref() was called once. The next balanced
g_object_unref() would make the object deallocated. You would have
to call g_object_ref() immediately after creating to make sure the
object exists until you decide to deallocate it.
With floating object you can (you have a choice):
- ref/unref the object any number of times as long as the number
of unrefs is never greater than the number of refs,
- give an ownership to a container and forget the unref (the container
will take care of it),
- unref the object to delete it.
It looks like a good design to me. Even if a better system can be
designed I believe it would not be much better and therefore not
worth reworking.
In my present state of ignorance, I don't buy it.
No one is suggesting reworking. This is no more than intellectual
interest in the original design choice.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]