On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 10:38 -0400, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> I like the way you're thinking - I expect to have real time to look
> at
> your code Tomorrow/Wednesday.
>
> One point that occurred to me over the weekend (that I think is
> probably incorporated in what you've done here). Is that C++ c
On Mon, 2015-08-17 at 10:38 -0400, Andrew Stitcher wrote:
> I like the way you're thinking - I expect to have real time to look
> at
> your code Tomorrow/Wednesday.
>
> One point that occurred to me over the weekend (that I think is
> probably incorporated in what you've done here). Is that C++ c
I like the way you're thinking - I expect to have real time to look at
your code Tomorrow/Wednesday.
One point that occurred to me over the weekend (that I think is
probably incorporated in what you've done here). Is that C++ code never
needs to use a shared_ptr to any Proton struct because Proton
In case you spotted the bug in the previous proposal here is a much
better one. This one doesn't have code yet but you can imagine how it
would work based on the previous code. I'll post updated code shortly.
Updated proposal to integrate C++ and proton C memory management.
- use refcounting cons
I have a proposal to integrate C++ and proton C memory management, I
need a sanity check.
Attached is an executable C++ sketch and test (pn_ptr.cpp) and a script
(test.sh) that runs the combinations of g++/clang++ and c++11/c++03, as
well as some tests to verify that we get compile errors to preve
