Op Sun, 5 Jun 2005, schreef Jamie McCracken:
> Its not a black or white issue IMO its a shade of grey. At the end of > the day you have to make a judgement call based on the facts. Im > asserting that with non-component objects the incidence of cycles is so > rare that provided we have a means of adding weak refs so that > knowledgable developers can overcome them when they do occur then the > issue of cycles can be ignored - after all if the probability of leaks > is based on a one in a million occurance of a cycle (Im not saying thats > an accurate probability!) coupled with an ignorant or naive developer > then thats an acceptable risk to me. If it turns out that cyclic > occurances are far more common than that then yeah that could be a > killer. There are of course workarounds but I dont like any of them - EG > python 2.3 does ref counting but also uses a mark sweep GC to mop up > cicrular refs but I really dont think we need to consider that. Hmmmm... I don't think a programming language where one cannot safely build graphs or ringbuffers will be very powerfull. Writing a compiler in it would be impossible to give an example. Daniël _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
