14.04.2013 21:07, Robert пишет:
Does it mean you disagree with proposed compiler changes and with the
idea we have to create weak reference functionality instead of
recreating it every time it is needed (beside of theoretical danger such
approach already showed it as a bad thing with `std.stdio.File` as I wrote)?
A weak reference could actually be implemented in the library relatively
easy. ( I basically did it for std.signals2 ) But for std.signals a weak
ref is not really enough, because ideally the slot gets removed if the
target gets destroyed, not only set to null. Updating a collection on
destruction of an object is not that easy as you pointed out (thank you
for that), but I don't see how weak references would help there.
Array of weak references is what is needed.
But you just made me think: If it is ok that a signal does not release
the memory for the slot immediately when the object gets destroyed but
only on the next call to emit(), then the implementation would be much
simpler ...
Yes, this is how array of weak references will work because this is how
weak references work. And this shows one mustn't implement general
facilities in every case they are needed as he will do mistakes and will
complicate thinks for himself.
--
Денис В. Шеломовский
Denis V. Shelomovskij
