How difficult is it to create a stack that can control the order of objects
being created and destroyed so you prevent leaks? Can you add a new method on
your base class that is inherited to all children to track this?
Sent from my iPad
> On Dec 4, 2018, at 6:54 PM, David Roe wrote:
>
>
>
No sarcasm intended. I used to work at a software development firm and we were
forced to use c++. Most of the back and forth that I have been observing with
the team is around memory leaks and I just wondered if that is due to your
development language choice. Hence, my comment. However, if
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 9:06 PM wrote:
> Would it be advisable to change the base programming language to one that
> does automatic garbage collection instead of having to check to see if a
> class has been properly disposed like it appears from all of these related
> bugs?
>
I can't tell if
Would it be advisable to change the base programming language to one that does
automatic garbage collection instead of having to check to see if a class has
been properly disposed like it appears from all of these related bugs?
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 4, 2018, at 12:44 PM, Jeroen Demeyer
On 2018-12-04 18:06, Nils Bruin wrote:
Tripledict does that to some extent (with its keys): if one of the key
parts gets deallocated, the weakref callback removes the strong
reference to the value.
Yes, but then we potentially end up again in the situation where things
are *only* weakly
On Tuesday, December 4, 2018 at 1:50:19 AM UTC-8, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>
> On 2018-12-03 17:21, Nils Bruin wrote:
> > In order to
> > make that possible, the coercion map (referenced strongly on the
> > codomain -- it needs to be strongly referenced somewhere to keep it
> > alive) must not
On 2018-12-03 17:21, Nils Bruin wrote:
In order to
make that possible, the coercion map (referenced strongly on the
codomain -- it needs to be strongly referenced somewhere to keep it
alive) must not hold a strong ref to the domain.
I wonder if there is a way to somehow reference an object
