On 2/6/14, 12:28 AM, luka8088 wrote:
On 5.2.2014. 0:51, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Consider we add a library slice type called RCSlice!T. It would have the
same primitives as T[] but would use reference counting through and
through. When the last reference count is gone, the buffer underlying
the slice is freed. The underlying allocator will be the GC allocator.
Now, what if someone doesn't care about the whole RC thing and aims at
convenience? There would be a method .toGC that just detaches the slice
and disables the reference counter (e.g. by setting it to uint.max/2 or
whatever).
Then people who want reference counting say
auto x = fun();
and those who don't care say:
auto x = fun().toGC();
Destroy.
Andrei
Here is a thought:
Let's say we have class A and class B, and class A accepts references to
B as children:
class A {
B child1;
B child2;
B child3;
}
I think that the ultimate goal is to allow the user to choose between
kinds of memory management, especially between automatic and manual. The
problem here is that class A needs to be aware whether memory management
is manual or automatic. And it seems to me that a new type qualifier is
a way to go:
class A {
garbageCollected(B) child1;
referenceCounted(B) child2;
manualMemory(B) child3;
}
There common theme here is that the original post introduces two
distinct types of slices, depending on how they are to be freed (by
refcounting or tracing).
Andrei
