[pulseaudio-discuss] [Vala] Issues will vala and pulse vapi

[Aaron Paden]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Evan Nemerson <evan at coeus-group.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2015-11-21 at 22:45 -0600, Aaron Paden wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 9:54 PM, Evan Nemerson <evan at coeus-group.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > That's not quite right; the VAPI shouldn't indicate that a *type*
>> > is
>> > "unmanaged"…  it's up to your code to indicate whether an instance
>> > is
>> > unowned.  However, the question is really what the proper way to
>> > destroy an instance is.
>> >
>> > In order to determine how to destroy a struct which doesn't specify
>> > a
>> > destroy_function CCode attribute, Vala will look at the
>> > members.  If
>> > none of the members require destroy or free functions, then Vala
>> > can
>> > assume that simply releasing the memory associated with the struct
>> > itself (i.e., calling g_free on heap-allocated instances, or simply
>> > allowing stack-allocated instances to go out of scope) is
>> > sufficient.
>>
>> Hum. Sourceinfo (and SinkInfo) should not be freed at all, the C APIs
>> that retrieve them give you const pointers.
>
> Then they should return an unowned reference.

Is it possible to do this when the pointer is an argument? These types
are requested and then asynchronously retrieved via callbacks.