Subject: Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for C++?
From: Ingo Loehken (Ingo.Loehken_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-28 09:32:22
No, thats a twisted interpretation. I'm just pointing out, there is a need
for shared ownership.
I am not discouraging any other approaches, because - as you state- there
Besides that, I would be pleased to review the mentioned approach.
Best regards, ILo.
From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
Date: 27.05.2010 20:43
Subject: Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach
Sent by: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
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 _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost