On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 18:55 +0200, Jan Hudec wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, April 28, 2010 13:46, Jan Niklas Hasse wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:31 AM, pancake <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Apr 28, 2010, at 10:24 AM, Jan Niklas Hasse <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So shouldn't Vala unref namespace scoped variables when leaving their > > scope? > > IMHO there is no reason to do it. The compiler could do it (using the > atexit mechanism) but than there are many ways the process can terminate > without calling them anyway (calling _exit, receiving fatal signal, the power > going out etc.). Therefore the program shouldn't rely on them for anything > important anyway and since system will clean up resources anyway, they are > not needed for that either. So IMHO supporting them would just promote > unreliable code and is thus not worth doing. >
This is an important feature, and I don't see how it promotes unreliable code. In the event that the program terminates normally, libraries and globally defined objects should be destroyed properly. That way they can flush buffers, or terminate network connections cleanly. Isn't that the point of the RAII pattern? When a program is killed (or otherwise terminates abnormally) it is a special case, and needn't be handled by the compiler. I don't see a problem using atexit to implement this feature. IMHO vala should try and be as consistent as possible, and having to manually destroy global variables is not consistent with the rest of vala's memory management.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ vala-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
