On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 00:33:11 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
That's a great point. So we're in good shape: we leave the object in a
well-defined state that allocates no resources and is distinguished from
all valid states.
By the way, what would be the problem with making "delete" do t
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> On 09/17/2010 05:30 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> > Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> >>
> >> But here is a legitimate question, how do we get the interfaces? There's
> >> no indication in the ABI of where the interfaces are. I know from logic
> >> that they must be before the
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:31:45 -0400, Sean Kelly
> wrote:
> >
> > Is there some reason clear() can't just call rt_finalize?
>
> does rt_finalize not deallocate the memory? If so, that's probably the
> right thing to do. In fact, I think it does exactly what we w
On 09/17/2010 05:30 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
But here is a legitimate question, how do we get the interfaces? There's
no indication in the ABI of where the interfaces are. I know from logic
that they must be before the data members. But logic also says that
interface
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:31:45 -0400, Sean Kelly
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:11:11 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:07:54 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
> wrote:
>
>> On 09/17/2010 04:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Fri, 17 Sep
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:30:35 -0400, Sean Kelly
wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
But here is a legitimate question, how do we get the interfaces?
There's
no indication in the ABI of where the interfaces are. I know from logic
that they must be before the data members. But logic also
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:11:11 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:07:54 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/17/2010 04:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:33:11 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
> But here is a legitimate question, how do we get the interfaces? There's
> no indication in the ABI of where the interfaces are. I know from logic
> that they must be before the data members. But logic also says that
> interfaces defined by the derived type
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:18:00 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:15:58 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:11:11 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:07:54 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 09/17/2010 04:55 PM,
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
> Is there a map somewhere of what the hidden data in an object looks like?
The ABI :-)
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:11:11 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:07:54 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 09/17/2010 04:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:33:11 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I think clear() can be fixed if we remove
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:15:58 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:11:11 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:07:54 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 09/17/2010 04:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:33:11 -0400, And
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> On 09/17/2010 04:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:33:11 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I think clear() can be fixed if we remove the call to the constructor
> >> AND obliterate the vptr.
> >
> > agreed.
>
> One more thing:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:11:11 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:07:54 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 09/17/2010 04:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:33:11 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I think clear() can be fixed if we remove
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 18:07:54 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 09/17/2010 04:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:33:11 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I think clear() can be fixed if we remove the call to the constructor
AND obliterate the vptr.
agreed.
One
On 09/17/2010 04:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:33:11 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I think clear() can be fixed if we remove the call to the constructor
AND obliterate the vptr.
agreed.
One more thing: we need to change the call to the destructor to check
t
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:59:15 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 09/17/2010 04:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:33:11 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I think clear() can be fixed if we remove the call to the constructor
AND obliterate the vptr.
agreed.
In f
On 09/17/2010 04:55 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:33:11 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I think clear() can be fixed if we remove the call to the constructor
AND obliterate the vptr.
agreed.
In fact ideally we'd obliterate all vptrs of the object, which might
be
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 17:33:11 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
I think clear() can be fixed if we remove the call to the constructor
AND obliterate the vptr.
agreed.
In fact ideally we'd obliterate all vptrs of the object, which might be
tricky. Ideas?
There's only one vptr, no?
-Ste
Continuing discussion regarding clear() from thread "QtD is suspended"
in digitalmars.D.announce.
On 09/17/2010 12:01 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:39:06 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 09/17/2010 09:02 AM, Max Samukha wrote:
One example is the semantics of c
20 matches
Mail list logo