Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> Erm... No idea :) I know it could cause a double-free if you copy the 
> object, since it doesn't have an explicit copy constructor and the 
> default one doesn't do what we want in this case; but I don't know what 
> could cause a leak.

  Ok, not a leak per se, but accessing freed memory. (Although that would
require more member functions than I added there...)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message