"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's true that, in general, there is no safe way to break the cycle; x1 may
> keep a raw pointer to x2, or it might be a X invariant that X::p is
> non-empty, causing ~X to fail. This is why the final decision to break the
> cycles should be left to the user, and the collector should not
> automatically reclaim memory. Still, most reasonable classes would be
> collect-friendly.
Isn't the biggest problem one of system design? How does the user
write the cycle-breaking code which does different things based on the
dynamic type of the objects being referenced?
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
