On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 11:56:53AM -0700, K Stol wrote: > > This doesn't necessarily mean that their memory has to be freed but that > > at least their destructor methods are called. > > So the objects may be still in memory. I thought the fact that they are > still in memory > was troublesome, but it's not, if I interpret your statement well.
I don't think its troublesome, no. From the PoV of the programmer, the object has been destroyed. You can leave the freeing of memory for later, that's an internal issue. -- Michael G Schwern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pobox.com/~schwern/ Beer still cheaper than crack!
