On Saturday, 17 March 2018 at 13:30:25 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
It makes no sense otherwise. This logically implies that manual
memory management is required, yet there is a possibility that
the parent of the class may use the garbage collection. Which
in this case, it begs the question on why the GC is forbid in
the first place.
Does anyone dispute this?
No, it's even required. Mixing GC and non-GC is a known source of
memory errors, but rather in the opposite way that the one you
describe. Errors happen when non-GC instances has GC-managed
members.
To be consistent on this point there are templates like in the
Containers library (ShouldAddGcRange) or like in IZ
(MustAddGcRange). The latter is inspired by the first and is
enhanced with a system of UDA (@NoGc). Also compilation can be
stopped if by error a GC-managed field is found.
After developing this in IZ, many memory problems i had in KHEOPS
suddenly disappeared and a kind of animated 2D scene started to
run for hours without disappearing elements (previously a GC
collection was causing this).
Enriched by this experience i can confirm that there's nothing to
dispute at all.
You're 100% correct.
