Melchior FRANZ wrote: > Andy Ross wrote: > > * In this case: using the reference count to tell whether or not the > > node is "in the tree" or "detached". > > Actually, it prevents nodes from disappearing from our property node > memory representation -- which is the property tree.
It sounds to me like these are saying exactly the same thing. Guys, please: The reference count is a count of pointers to an object. Nothing more. Making it mean anything else is *not* a reference count. Reference counting is a well-established idiom. Plib uses it. The auto_ptr uses it. It apperas in pretty much every textbook on C++. When I saw that the David's SGPropertyNode class implemented a refcounted pointer, I knew *exactly* how to use it, because it worked like all the other ones I have seen. And guess what? It worked. The new "reference count" semantics are not the same as the ones plib uses. They are not the same as auto_ptr, or the treatments in textbooks. And therefore they are confusing, and cause bugs. Changing the meanings of well-established idioms in critical infrastructure like the property system is just really bad design. Sorry, but it is. If you insist on re-purposing the reference count, then please rename it to something else (that is, after you've removed the props.Node interface from Nasal). > Fixing the new one is, of course, desirable *if* it's broken. Huh? This whole discussion started when you reported that after the new changes, removing property nodes from Nasal was broken. The reason is that the change broke the refcount semantics that Nasal is relying on. Andy _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@flightgear.org http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel 2f585eeea02e2c79d7b1d8c4963bae2d
