"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Yes, but IIUC the reason the library's not doing it is because you >> might get the order wrong, which could cause a problem like a dangling >> pointer needed for some destructor. > > Not really... The library's not currently doing it because it hasn't been my > goal to provide a "real" garbage collected pointer. sp_debug_hooks.cpp is an > example that demonstrates what can be done with the debug hooks called by > shared_ptr; code using it operates in "safe mode" (or slightly safer mode.) > IOW a shared_ptr cycle is still not supposed to happen in bug free programs. > > That aside, can you think of a reasonable design that does not depend on > intentionally created shared_ptr cycles, but still needs a correct > destruction order when a cycle is broken?
I can barely think of a reasonable design where GC is a big design win ;-) In my work, ownership relationships are usually very obvious. When they're not, destruction does nothing but release resources. -- David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost