search for: cfunc2

...c") So, are the following statements correct 1. S is 'doubly' protected from the GC by being associated both with 'v' and because it has been added to the precious list (via a call to R_PreserveObject without ReleaseObject being called) 2. I have another C function called cfunc2. In cfunc2, I call R_ReleaseObject on S. S , however, is still protected from the GC, because it is associated with 'v' Is (1) and (2) correct? I have not used R_protect/unprotect, because if I return from cfunc without the equivalent number of unprotects, i get 'unbalanced stack'...

...c") So, are the following statements correct 1. S is 'doubly' protected from the GC by being associated both with 'v' and because it has been added to the precious list (via a call to R_PreserveObject without ReleaseObject being called) 2. I have another C function called cfunc2. In cfunc2, I call R_ReleaseObject on S. S , however, is still protected from the GC, because it is associated with 'v' Is (1) and (2) correct? I have not used R_protect/unprotect, because if I return from cfunc without the equivalent number of unprotects, i get 'unbalanced stack'...

...c") So, are the following statements correct 1. S is 'doubly' protected from the GC by being associated both with 'v' and because it has been added to the precious list (via a call to R_PreserveObject without ReleaseObject being called) 2. I have another C function called cfunc2. In cfunc2, I call R_ReleaseObject on S. S , however, is still protected from the GC, because it is associated with 'v' Is (1) and (2) correct? I have not used R_protect/unprotect, because if I return from cfunc without the equivalent number of unprotects, i get 'unbalanced stack'...