Re: Allocators and exceptions

[Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>]

On Sep 12, 1:35 pm, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:08:18 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> > By the way, although I think having the language deallocate the object
> > automatically is a bad idea,
>
> How to reconcile this with:
>
> 1. objects allocated on the stack
>
> 2. all sorts of temporal objects the compiler is allowed to create (and
> thus allocate somehow, somewhere)
>
> 3. a permission given to collect garbage?

There's nothing to reconcile, because I didn't say that the language
should never deallocate *any* object automatically; I think you'd have
to take my sentence out of context to read it that way.  In the
particular case we're discussing on this thread, my objection is that
I'm not convinced a dangling pointer couldn't be created (by using
"normal" features of the language, not Unchecked features).  By
contrast, the language rules do prevent this in cases #1 and #2: in
case #1, by the accessibility rules; in case #2, I think it's because
only for limited types can you take the 'Access of the "current
instance", and the build-in-place rules ensure that anonymous objects
aren't created for limited types.  For #3, a working garbage collector
by definition won't deallocate anything that isn't pointed to.

                          -- Adam