Miroirs/aocla
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/antirez/aocla synced 2024-12-27 09:58:32 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Markdown fixes.

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
antirez 2023-02-01 12:10:00 +01:00
parent 6d34f5462b
commit e69deac83e
1 changed files with 264 additions and 264 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
README.md
View file

@ -874,12 +874,12 @@ push it on the stack and the object has still a single reference.
Now imagine that, instead, the object is shared and also lives in a Now imagine that, instead, the object is shared and also lives in a
variable. In this case we pop an object that has two references, call variable. In this case we pop an object that has two references, call
`getUnsharedObject() that will return us a copy with a *recount* of one. We `getUnsharedObject()` that will return us a copy with a *recount* of one. We
change the object and push it to the stack. The new object will have a change the object and push it to the stack. The new object will have a
single reference on the stack, and has a reference count of one: all is single reference on the stack, and has a reference count of one: all is
fine. What about the old object stored in the local variable? It should fine. What about the old object stored in the local variable? It should
have a reference count of one as well, but if we don't `release()` it have a reference count of one as well, but if we don't `release()` it
in getUnsharedObject() it would have two, causing a memory leak. in `getUnsharedObject()` it would have two, causing a memory leak.
I'll not show the `deepCopy()` function, it just allocates a new object of the specified type and copy the content. But guess what? It's a recursive function. I'll not show the `deepCopy()` function, it just allocates a new object of the specified type and copy the content. But guess what? It's a recursive function.