In our previous episode, Andrew Brunner said: > > obj1 := nil; > > obj2 := nil; > > Try > > ?obj1 := TMyObject.Create; > > ?obj2 := TMyObject.Create; > > > > ?obj1.DoSomething1; > > ?obj2.DoSomething2; > > finally > > ?obj1.Free; > > ?obj2.Free; > > end; > > > > The objectcs are protected. But is boring... :) > > Everybody codify like that, afraid if resources are not available? > > > > Nope. If Obj2 failed to create you will have a problem with Obj2.Free.
Nope. That's why it is free and not destroy. > If you used FreeAndNil(Obj1) and FreeAndNil(Obj2) that might work > around that one issue.. Doesn't matter either. > But taking the real issue to the next > level... What if something in Obj1.free raised an exception... Then > you will not free Object2. The "best" way is with nested exception > handling. Sorry :-) That's the problematic one I think. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
