"Walter Bright" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Invariants should be checking the state of the object that it owns, not
other objects. I would consider such an invariant invalid.
What? No.
This is a perfectly valid use of invariants:
class A
{
B b;
invariant()
{
assert(!b || b.getA() is this);
}
}
class B
{
A a;
A getA() { return a; }
}
ie checking that the two objects reference each other. This will fail if B
is destroyed before A's invariant is run.
I don't see why we'd want anything other than
1. Determine which memory objects are unreferenced
2. Run their invariants
3. Run their destructors
Running the invariants while you're part-way through destroying the object
graph is just insane.
