XOTcl/NX mailing list by object move?

From: Kristoffer Lawson <setok_at_fishpool.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:37:27 +0200

On 16 Mar 2006, at 14:15, Scott Gargash wrote:
>
> > I understand that the
> > operation is actually quite expensive, due to current Tcl internals,
> > but is there any reason why a destructor should be called? If we
> want
> > a method called for a move operation, surely it would be simple to
> > define that a "beingMoved" method is then called.
>
> I'm guessing that xotcl::object's "destroy" method does all the
> heavy lifting (cleaning up the source of the move). What would
> happen if the default move implementation was to change the source
> object's class to xotcl::object before invoking destroy? This way
> it would continue to use the xotcl::object's "destroy"
> implementation for cleanup purposes without invoking all of the
> subclass destroy methods, and derived classes wouldn't perceive
> move as a destroy operation. Would this have bad side-effects?
But I am guessing even this is unnecessary. Why call the destroy at
all? I am confident, without looking at the actual code, that
deallocation of the resources for the 'original' object could be
deallocated without going through the whole destruction procedure.

            / http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/