🚀 go-pugleaf

thanks for clearing that out for me.

"Joanna Carter [TeamB]" <joanna@not.for.spam> wrote in message 
news:447abdd8$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
> "Andre" <andretruter@webmail.co.za> a �crit dans le message de news:
> 447aa0bd@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> |I have a series of my own eventHandler delegates, and a few events using
> | these delegates. All works fine. Im just concerned about one thing.
> | In some litrature the author define a event like this:
> |
> | public event eventHandler onEvent
> | {
> |    add{/// some code}
> |    remove{/// some code}
> | }
> |
> | assuming which are used when doing:
> |
> | myObj.onEvent += new eventHandler(this.onEventAction);
> |
> | and
> |
> | myObj.onEvent -= new eventHandler(this.onEventAction);
> |
> | Now, is this a cleanup routine when using -= or does it just add
> additional
> | functionality to the event contruction/destruction?
>
> Using -= removes a handler from an event, nothing more.
>
> | Is this type of coding neccesary? good practice or mandatory for event
> | cleanup?
>
> This style of coding where you have to call "+/-= new EventHandler(...)"
> become optional in C# 2.0 where you can simplify the statement to 
> something
> like :
>
> myObj.Event += HandleEventAction;
> myObj.Event -= HandleEventAction;
>
> | As far as I know, the object owning the event gets disposed by GC
> | automaticlly.
> | Should I call the -= manouver when the object gets disposed?
>
> No, you don't need to do anything as you don't know when the objects will
> actually get collected. The only possible gotcha is if you create 
> temporary
> objects with handler methods; if you were to expect the temporary objects 
> to
> be GCed, you would have to ensure that their handler methods were
> disconnected, otherwise the list of delegates would grow indefinitely
> everytime a new temporary object's handler was connected.
>
> Joanna
>
> -- 
> Joanna Carter [TeamB]
> Consultant Software Engineer
>
>