From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > From: "William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > I think that extending it to free memory in cycles would be a great idea. > > Of course, this opens a large can of worms about how to handle destruction > > of objects which refer to each other...< > > > > One possible approach is to return a list of references to the "offending" > > shared_ptr instances to the user, who can then reset() them as appropriate. > > Actually it's not as simple as that since a reset() can invalidate some of > > the returned references; the shared_ptr instances would first need to be > > copied to a temporary container, the originals reset(), and the temporary > > container destroyed, but the general idea is the same. > > This just pushes the issue off on the end user... who may not be any more capable of dealing with the problem either. If he can't do a lot of book keeping to handle the circular problem, then pushing it off on him is not much help. And if he can do the book keeping, there's probably a solution he can code into the destructors themselves.<
No, the user would not be expected to do any bookkeeping. He would only need to call find_unreachable_objects() that would return a list of the unreachable objects, and then, optionally, call break_cycles() with that list as an argument. Or something like that. :-) _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
