On 5/1/14, 3:10 AM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Thursday, 1 May 2014 at 01:04:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
That means classes that need cleanup (either directly or by having
fields that are structs with destructors) would need to garner that
by other means, such as reference counting or manual. We're
considering deprecating ~this() for classes in the future.
So essentially, any class with a dtor needs reference counting? How
does one clean up a cycle of them?
Yeah, what he said. This has me very worried. Making cycles is actually
incredibly easy. Any "inteligently" implemented "node-based" data
structure, implemented with classes, such as a linked list, a tree or a
graph, is virtually guaranteed to have a cycle somewhere...
In my experience classes with destructors are simpler (files,
sockets)... Lists, trees, and graphs tend to be in-memory objects. But
of course this is just speculation.
*Or*
is the idea that reference counting only works for finalization, but the
memory is still managed by the GC? In that case, the destructors would
leak, but the memory still be released?
That's still bad, of course, but not "as" bad...
Yah, that would be the case. Essentially we're talking about making the
entire GC heap passive.
Andrei
