GC and dtors ~ a different approach?
kris
foo at bar.com
Mon Apr 10 13:29:56 PDT 2006
Sean Kelly wrote:
> kris wrote:
>
>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>
>>> kris wrote:
>>> All of those pros you mention are valid. But you'd have one serious con:
>>> * Any class which required cleanup would have to be manually memory
>>> managed.
>>
>>
>> Can anyone come up with some examples whereby a class needs to
>> cleanup, and also /needs/ to be collected lazily? In other words,
>> where raii or delete could not be applied appropriately?
>
>
> Well, there are plenty of instances where the lifetime of an object
> isn't bound to a specific owner or scope--consider connection objects
> for a server app. However, in most cases it's possible (and correct) to
> delegate cleanup responsibility to a specific manager object or to link
> it to the occurrence of some specific event.
Aye
> So far as
> non-deterministic cleanup via dtors is concerned, I think it's mostly
> implemented as a fail-safe. And it may be more correct to signal an
> error if such an object is encountered via a GC run than to simply clean
> it up silently, as a careful programmer might consider this a resource
> leak.
Yes; that's how I feel about it also. Especially when the "silent"
cleanup leads to SegFaults and such. Intended as a fail-safe, but
actually a failure-causation ;-)
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list