On Wednesday, December 21, 2011 08:07:23 foobar wrote: > I disagree with the above conclusion. you conflate two issues > that are orthogonal: > a. value vs. ref semantics which is already seemed to be decided > in favor of the latter and hence classes. b. memory and lifetime > management > > The containers should allow for (disregard the specifics of the > syntax): > > Container a = new(SharedMemAllocator) LinkedList(); > Container b = new(MallocAllocator) LinkedList(); > Container c = new(GC) LinkedList(); > > When adding an item to the above containers the relevant > allocator will enact its policy about intermixing with other > allocators - by default the item will be copied if it comes from > a separate allocator. I don't see anything here that forces the > use of structs instead of classes.
And if they're classes and not managed by the GC nor in a struct which manages their lifetime, how are they going to be freed? Does the user have to explicitly free them themselves? How is that better than using a ref-counted struct? And no, using reference semantics does _not_ require classes. A class is just the easiest way to get reference semantics. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's the best way. That depends on the context. - Jonathan M Davis
