On 2010-08-10 08:11:21 -0400, "Steven Schveighoffer"
<[email protected]> said:
Undefined, undefined, undefined :)
So we agree on that. That's exactly what I was trying to prove to
Andrei. Using clear() can break program invariants, break the type
system (immutable members) and so on, even though I admit it can be
useful at times.
**** So why give it a so innocuous-looking name such as "clear" !! ****
Call it destroy() at the very very least, and put it in a module where
no one will find it by accident and think it is safe for general use.
For instance, it could be made part of the GC API, allowing the GC to
adjust the memory block to avoid calling the destructor a second time
upon collection. GC.destroy() sounds like a good name for that kind
functionality.
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
