AW: [Xotcl] destroy invoked by object move?

[Kristoffer Lawson]

On 16 Mar 2006, at 14:15, Scott Gargash wrote:
>
> > I understand that the
> > operation is actually quite expensive, due to current Tcl internals,
> > but is there any reason why a destructor should be called? If we  
> want
> > a method called for a move operation, surely it would be simple to
> > define that a "beingMoved" method is then called.
>
> I'm guessing that xotcl::object's "destroy" method does all the  
> heavy lifting (cleaning up the source of the move).  What would  
> happen if the default move implementation was to change the source  
> object's class to xotcl::object before invoking destroy?  This way  
> it would continue to use the xotcl::object's "destroy"  
> implementation for cleanup purposes without invoking all of the  
> subclass destroy methods, and derived classes wouldn't perceive  
> move as a destroy operation.  Would this have bad side-effects?
But I am guessing even this is unnecessary. Why call the destroy at  
all? I am confident, without looking at the actual code, that  
deallocation of the resources for the 'original' object could be  
deallocated without going through the whole destruction procedure.

            /  http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/