Subject: Re: [boost] [shifted_ptr] Review Request
From: Phil Bouchard (philippe_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-06 16:53:23
On 4/6/2011 1:22 PM, Thomas Klimpel wrote:
> 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.
The timer was a bad example, forget about it. But in the case of the
Mark & Sweep algorithm, a call to the parent window destructor will
still be premature if the modal child dialog box still exists.
> 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.
By comparing Shifted Pointer to other solutions then people might find
it easier to understand because I'm talking their language.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk