Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for C++?

Subject: Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for C++?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-27 14:41:09

At Thu, 27 May 2010 20:02:45 +0200,
Ingo Loehken wrote:
> 
> if I understand "hard to reason about" in the right why : like there
> is no need for shared ownership at all, this also means that there
> is no use for COM Programming - and of course there is.

I think you don't understand it the right way.  Shared ownership (at
least in the presence of mutation) is hard to reason about because
seemingly-local modifications can have non-local effects.

Furthermore, your logic seems flawed to me.  By analogy:

  There is no need for Intel processors (we can all use AMD).
  Therefore there is no use for an Intel processor?

-- 
Dave Abrahams           Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com