Xref: utzoo comp.windows.x:33197 comp.windows.x.motif:2015 comp.windows.open-look:687 Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!hsdndev!spdcc!tauxersvilli!alphalpha!nazgul From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x,comp.windows.x.motif,comp.windows.open-look Subject: Re: Toolkit for Open Look *and* OSF/Motif Look and Feel Message-ID: <1991Feb21.143255.10611@alphalpha.com> Date: 21 Feb 91 14:32:55 GMT References: <1322@ixos.de> <1057@attc.UUCP> <1991Feb19.210822.26826@visix.com> <1991Feb20.170617.15372@cs.umn.edu> Organization: asi Lines: 21 In article toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Tom LaStrange) writes: >How do you signal a failure when using a constructor? The oi_create*** >routines basically do a "new" with additional checks to ensure all of the >object's resources were allocated (bitmap files, fonts, etc.) If the object >could not be constructed, a NULL is returned and all resources that were >allocated are freed. I put code in the new handler to free stuff up and signal an error? How much of your code actually checks for the return value from oi_create and does something reasonable with it? How often is that something more than mapping a (cached) window and saying, "Sorry, out of memory."? I'm not saying the oi_create stuff is wrong, but I'm not convinced it's worth the trouble. -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.