Another silly leak question

Hey dudes!
I was wondering if this function is ok

or if I have to do it the hard way

Yeah it's ok. But looks like you could improve performance by makeing this an actual condition for the enum using globals. can you post the part of the code, where you use this function?

Nah that's fine. Players don't leak as they are created on map init and exist throughout the game.

I think you don't even have to null player variables... not sure about that though.

Edit: damn you moleman!

It's a shortened version of my AllowedTargets checker for a spell I'm making.
It includes Magic Immune, structures, mechanical and other types of units, but I didn't want to bother you with the rest.
I'm using GroupEnumUnitsInRange() function which requires a boolexpr, which in this case is Condition( function AllowedTargetsCaller ), and AllowedTargetsCaller() passes on GetFilterUnit and GlobalCaster to AllowedTargets, so I can rename them (easier to edit later, though not as optimized)

That's what i guessed. just wanted to say you could get rid of a function call with 2 parameters for every single unit, when you put caster in a global tempvariable and use AllowedTargets as the Condition directly. However if you use AllowedTargets as a costumisation setup function it's ok ofc.

from what i know, they're so called "pseudo-handles", and therefor don't increase the handle-count or any reference-counter, AFAIK. meaning they cause no leak whenever they're created and not destroyed, because nothing new is actually created, and nulling them is not required either(since they're not ref-counted).
since 1.24 the new variable type "agent" also exists, which is similar to handle, but actually is the type handle excluding pseudo-handles(such as player), and only including reference-counted handles.
thats the explanation for that, i find it pretty interesting and useful to know :)

You don't need to null local player variables.

Now that's interesting...
Thank you (gotta spread rep around before I can give to you)

Oh and kudus to Blubb-Tec for a good explenation

if we're picky, grim only repeated what I already stated :P

Well I'm kind of slow so I didn't understand what you wrote, until now.

Rather than a pseudo-handle, player works similar to singleton for each players. Actually player extends agent, hence it is not a pseudo-handle. Reference counts would be meaningless since player objects consume 1 reference count themselves, though.

haha, nice :P