Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-26 20:02:02

If RAII is broken by "Managed C++" then "Managed C++" is broken.

On May 26, 2004, at 6:22 PM, Brian Braatz wrote:

> (My own post got me thinking some more). I am new to boost, and do not
> fully have my head around all that exists. But I am asking a general
> question here, has anyone tried running boost under "Managed C++", I
> assume there is a lot of RAII type of usage in boost that I assume
> would
> break. Or am I misunderstanding something?
> Thanks to anyone who can clarify.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Braatz
> Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 5:18 PM
> To: 'boost_at_[hidden]'
> Subject: RE: [boost] Re: [prereview request][fsm]
> My 2 cents
> """"""""""""""""""
> This is certainly doable. However, I'm unsure whether the current
>> design allows a you-don't-pay-for-what-you-don't-use implementation of
>> such a feature. Plus, I'm still not convinced that this feature would
>> be used more than rarely. Do you have some real-world use cases in
> mind?
> [David Abrahams]
> Unfortunately I'm not so familiar with what exit actions in FSMs are
> typically used for, but from an abstract point of view I don't think of
> resource releasing as an "action". If you were writing this stuff in a
> GC'd language, for the most part, you wouldn't devote any exit action
> code to resource releases.
> """""""""""""""""'
> I think this is a very good point as MS seems (IMO\whether I like it or
> not) to be driving us down a managed GC path for future C++ efforts.
> This is something to deeply consider. Not that MS is "everything", but
> they do have a lot of C++ developers using their tools and os's.
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at