Bryan Carbonnell
carbonnb at sympatico.ca
Fri Apr 18 10:48:55 CDT 2003
On 18 Apr 2003 at 10:15, Brett Barabash wrote: > My only issue with your method, is that it requires the parent code to > explicitly call the TearDown method to destroy the object. If the > TearDown method isn't called (crashes, sloppy code, whatever), the > object will remain in memory. Yep, same issue I have with doing it that way as well. Unfortunately, it's about the only way I can think of to do it. IIRC, I got this methid from the VBADH by Getz & Gilbert. > I ran across a very interesting article through Google groups, about > establishing "Weak References". Using the CopyMemory API call, you > can establish an uncounted reference to an object and avoid the common > circular reference problems. A little bit more work and more risky > (as an uncounted interface, you need to handle cleanup manually). > Still, an interesting read: > http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7uluuc%24srp%241%40nntp1.atl.mind > spring .net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain Sounds like an interesting read. I must add it to my ever growing collection of things to read. -- Bryan Carbonnell - carbonnb at sympatico.ca We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.^ [Robert Wilensky (1997)]