> If I understand correctly (correct me if not): > > - You intend to create separate hbqt_gcpointer*() calls for > each object type.
No, my proposal 1) has just 2 functions, one hbqt_gcpointer for Qt objects that don't have pq and one hbqt_gcpointer_has_pq for objects that have one... Proposal 2) keeps only one function but uses bNew to store if pq is valid or not. Proposal 3) stress it more using QPointer in place of ph to streamline some routine... > - To add NULL checking to these functions. Yes. But Pritpal says that we don't have such cases and the problem is only in destructor... Infact I proposed that bNew status bits to better trace what happens... ------------------------------- I was also thinking about the possibility of eliminating all the QGC_POINTER_Q* structures at all and just use QGC_POINTER but with the addition of pq and bNews used as status... It would add 4 bytes to each Qt object All QGC_POINTER_Q* I examined are equal to QGC_POINTER or to QGC_POINTER plus pq member... I only don't know if it is possibile to have a "generic" definition QPointer< * > pq; So I believe that each QGC_POINTER_Q* that has no pq member can become a QGC_POINTER, while for the others that have the pq member a C++ expert should tell if QPointer< * > pq; is supported. I found also a case where QGC_POINTER_QHttpResponseHeader is defined, but a standard QGC_pointer is used.... Francesco _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
