On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Marco van de Voort <mar...@stack.nl> wrote: > 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.
Okay Marco, you explained to Andrew! ;-) >> 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. Can an exception happen in Free method?! :-O Marcos Douglas _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
