Re: [Vala] 'weak' keyword context?

["Andrés G. Aragoneses" <knocte gmail com>]

El 21/01/10 03:05, Jiří Zárevúcky escribió:
> "Andrés G. Aragoneses" píše v Čt 21. 01. 2010 v 02:57 +0100:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > My question is simple: can the "weak" keyword be used for local
> > variables instead of fields? (Sorry I cannot check it right now with the
> > last version.) If yes (or if it will in some future version), does it
> > really have any sense? Can I see an example?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >      Andrés
>
> Hi Andrés,
>
> in case I didn't oversleep, 'weak' keyword still doesn't have it's
> intended semantics. You shouldn't use it (yet), because it's meaning
> will change in the future. 'unowned' should be used instead (at the

That's not what it is said here [0].


> moment the two are the same). But to your question: you can use it for
> both fields and local variables. 

Then, can you put a similar example as the one mentioned here [0] but
using local variables?


Thanks,

        Andrés


[0] http://live.gnome.org/Vala/ReferenceHandling

> In the future, 'unowned' will stay as
> it is now, but 'weak' will keep track of the object you are referencing
> with it, setting itself to null when it's destroyed.
>
> Whether it makes sense for local variables depends on what you're trying
> to achieve. Mostly it's irrelevant for the programs function, but
> 'unowned' can be used as a mean of performance optimization (only use
> when you really know what you're doing).