On terça-feira, 3 de setembro de 2013 09:39:21, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On terça-feira, 3 de setembro de 2013 09:58:28, Philipp Kursawe wrote:
> > Using this code:
> >
> > @
> > obj->connect(sender, &Sender::signal, [] {
> > });
> >
> > // later
> > obj->deleteLater();
> > @
> >
> > The object will be deleted, but the connection will not be broken, and
> > the sender can still signal, the lambda will be called, but of course
> > it will crash. Is this a known limitation of using lambdas?
>
> Huh? how can you send a signal after the sender is deleted?
>
> deleteLater() does not mean delete *now*.Ah, sorry, after reading Constantin's email, I see what you meant. I took the lambda in the example to be literal. I did not see how emitting the signal from Sender would crash, since the lambda didn't do anything. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
