Subject: Re: [boost] [shifted_ptr] Review Request
From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-06 16:22:16
Phil Bouchard wrote:
> No reference to its data is left but the destruction of the window is
> premature. If the parent is incrementing a timer in the child widget,
> then the parent can't be destroyed before its child otherwise the timer
> will become inert.
If the parent is still able to do something (like incrementing a times in the child widget), then obviously references to the parent still exist. For Mark & Sweep, you are in a context where even every implicit reference is known to the garbage collector. It's clear that you can't strictly guarantee this for a C/C++ program. But in this case, the problem would be that an implicit reference went unnoticed by the Mark & Sweep garbage collector, not that it wiped an unreferenced node.
Thomas Klimpel wrote:
> I guess "shifted_ptr<>" is a class template, not an "attempt".
> The "Shifted Pointer library" may be an attempt to offer a
> garbage collection mechanism with unique advantages. If you
> immediately start comparing it with other libraries before
> even properly describing itself, you end up talking more about
> the other libraries than about the "Shifted Pointer library".
I have a bit the impression that you end up again talking more about another approach (Mark & Sweep in this case) than about the "Shifted Pointer" approach. That's OK for me, just don't blame me if you should find out later that this might have been a waste of time.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk