Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!samsung!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!resnick From: resnick@cogsci.uiuc.edu (Pete Resnick) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Linked Lists: Handles or Pointers? Message-ID: <1991Jan28.202107.6209@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 28 Jan 91 20:21:07 GMT References: <1991Jan23.002212.7648@umiami.ir.miami.edu> <.664719435@rw8.urc.tue.nl> <1991Jan24.145729.12853@nada.kth.se> Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana Lines: 29 rcbaab@rwa.urc.tue.nl (Annard Brouwer) writes: [ jibberish about the virtues of *not* using HLock, HUnlock, or MoveHHi...] Annard, I don't know what you are trying to do, but you have totally missed the point. If you are really using a Handle (you refer to a HandleType in your psuedo-code), it *must* be locked for some of the toolbox routines. If you are implying that your's is always locked, or that your are declaring a record or structure of some sort to hold the handle info, or are allocating pointers instead of handles in the heap, you are being a memory hog and causing fragmentation. Anyway way you go, you are doing this improperly for all except the smallest programs. It sounds like you got all in a huff for someone telling you that you were wrong, when you were in fact either wrong or just plain not understanding the original question. I hope the new programmers who were looking for answers to questions about memory allocation do not listen to this information. It is just misguided. pr -- Pete Resnick (...so what is a mojo, and why would one be rising?) Graduate assistant - Philosophy Department, Gregory Hall, UIUC System manager - Cognitive Science Group, Beckman Institute, UIUC Internet/ARPAnet/EDUnet : resnick@cogsci.uiuc.edu BITNET (if no other way) : FREE0285@UIUCVMD