- From: Michael B. Allen <mballen@erols.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 20:17:35 -0400
- To: Curt Arnold <carnold@houston.rr.com>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
On Sat, Aug 18, 2001 at 12:17:20PM -0500, Curt Arnold wrote: > > You're right there, that's what the spec currently says. But the spec is > > wrong, though. It is meant to say the opposite. Meaning an EventListener should be called even if another listener in the list currently being processed removes it? I think the implementation issue may become even more difficult in languanges with explicit memory management though. Currently, my implementation frees a ListenerEntry struct when removeEventListener is called. As is, this would result in dereferencing a dangling pointer if dispatchEvent attempts to trigger a listener after it has been removed. I suspect I must collect the pointers to the actull functions to be called for each listener and store that in an array (i.e. pre-dereference the listener functions). I'm glad I asked. Thanks Curt, Mike -- Wow a memory-mapped fork bomb! Now what on earth did you expect? - lkml
Received on Saturday, 18 August 2001 20:11:17 UTC