On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 21:20:13 +0100
Daniel Stone wrote:
> On 29 September 2017 at 19:46, Derek Foreman wrote:
> > I've heard some complaints that wl_display.get_registry "leaks"
> > server memory because wl_registry has no destructor. While this isn't
> > strictly true - all those resources are
On 29 September 2017 at 19:46, Derek Foreman wrote:
> I've heard some complaints that wl_display.get_registry "leaks"
> server memory because wl_registry has no destructor. While this isn't
> strictly true - all those resources are freed when the client
> disconnects - it's a bit of a gotcha for
I've heard some complaints that wl_display.get_registry "leaks"
server memory because wl_registry has no destructor. While this isn't
strictly true - all those resources are freed when the client
disconnects - it's a bit of a gotcha for neophytes.
Since wl_registry's version is not requested in a
