(Sorry for any line break problems... more normal mail system is down because my Linux box has crashed, and the temporary access I have to e-mail is a cheap webmail interface for which I have little control over the formatting.)
> From: David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > It's true that, in general, there is no safe way to break the cycle; x1 may > > keep a raw pointer to x2, or it might be a X invariant that X::p is > > non-empty, causing ~X to fail. This is why the final decision to break the > > cycles should be left to the user, and the collector should not > > automatically reclaim memory. Still, most reasonable classes would be > > collect-friendly. > > Isn't the biggest problem one of system design? How does the user > write the cycle-breaking code which does different things based on the > dynamic type of the objects being referenced? That's basically the question I had, but much better worded. With out a solution for this, I think it's better to just call the destructors and leave it up to the user to write "garbage collector safe destructors", which is the norm any way. William E. Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
