delete and references?

[Leandro Lucarella]

Leandro Lucarella, el  8 de agosto a las 11:22 me escribiste:
> Andrei Alexandrescu, el  8 de agosto a las 08:42 me escribiste:
> > Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> > >On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Andrei
> > >Alexandrescu<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> > >>FWIW, I am trying to convince Walter to not reclaim memory in delete, but
> > >>instead only call destructors. D continues C++'s mistake of conflating
> > >>lifetime termination with memory reclamation.
> > >Why?  Instead of dangling pointers, you'd end up with pointers to
> > >finalized objects, which would probably lead to harder-to-catch bugs
> > >(since then you wouldn't even get a segfault).
> > 
> > Getting a segfault == lucky
> 
> You could easily get a segfault *if* the memory is big enough (> 1 page)
> *and* if there is some support from the OS. Remove the RW permissions from
> the page and when somebody wants to access it or write it... BOOM! You'll
> get your segfault.
> 
> So it's not only lucky, so can choose your own destiny ;)

But, well, that has nothing to do with putting that memory in the free list
or not, it can be implemented for both approaches...

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUGAR COMPULSIVAMENTE ES PERJUDICIAL PARA LA SALUD.
	-- Casino de Mar del Plata