Re: [boost] request for interest in a garbage collection library

Subject: Re: [boost] request for interest in a garbage collection library
From: Achilleas Margaritis (axilmar_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-17 04:08:25

Sid Sacek wrote:
>>> It's the lack of a programming model that integrates
>>> destructors and peoples' legitimate expectations that they will be
>>> called to release non-memory resxources.  What can you say about the
>>> non-memory resources owned by a GC'd object that contains, say, a
> mutex?
> 
>> Personally, I don't see why resources like mutexes or files should be
>> managed like memory. Resources like that are "binary" resources: they
>> have two states (locked/unlocked, opened/closed), which is perfectly
>> suited for RAII.
> 
> 
> I think the question David was asking is; if a GC object is holding a
> mutex that is currently holding a lock, then when does that lock
> release, or how does that lock release? The GC may run in the future,
> and in the meanwhile, that lock is frozen.
> 

Aren't scoped locks a better way to handle such issues? The big 
advantage of C++ is scoped construction/destruction.