Warp escribió:
> 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...)
> 

Ahh, then I can say I did figure out both.

Post a reply to this message