On 11/28/05, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote: > Neal Norwitz wrote: > > For those watching, Greg's and Martin's version were almost the same. > > However, Greg's version left in the memory leak, while Martin fixed it > > by letting the result fall through. > > Actually, Greg said (correctly) that his version also fixes the > leak: he assumed that FunctionDef would *consume* the references > being passed (whether it is successful or not). Ah right, I forgot about that. Thanks for correcting me (sorry Greg). Jeremy and I had talked about this before. I keep resisting this solution, though I'm not sure why. n
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4