Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uccba!spca6!kgw2!dennisg
From: dennisg@kgw2.uucp.WEC.COM (Dennis Glatting)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: [self free] is a bad example
Message-ID: <352@kgw2.uucp.WEC.COM>
Date: 13 Jan 90 13:24:39 GMT
References: <1842@opus.cs.mcgill.ca>
Organization: Xetron Corp, Cincinnati Ohio
Lines: 24

In article <1842@opus.cs.mcgill.ca>, clement@opus.cs.mcgill.ca (Clement Pellerin) writes:
> 
> The example is [self free].  Note that self will be deallocated by
> the time this message returns.  The object class of self will not be deallocated

hmm. remember that self is just a pointer to a memory location.  just
because one malloc() something doesn't imply it can't be accessed after free().
the results cannot be predictable.

therefore, yes, i beleive you can access those instance variables.  self,
a simple pointer, isn't erased.  uou simply forget about it.

i would think that if you subclass had a free method then you might get
a infinite loop with [ obj free ].  don't ya tink?

> Is it worth contacting NeXT?
> 

sure, just email bug_next@next.com.

--
 dennisg@kgw2.bwi.WEC.COM  | Dennis P. Glatting
 ..!uunet!tron!kgw2!dennisg |
   <<This section isn't available on-line.>>