Nick Keighley wrote:
Why? They could simply use reference counted smart pointers, like
tr1::shared_ptr .
--
Ian Collins
On 4 Nov, 20:24, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
>
I think your design is broken at this point. This isn't a C
problem you'd have exactly the same issues with C++ despite
it's "machinary" .
>
>>
>I am going to throw in one curve ball. Our program will contain
>references to created bobbles; we won't know where these are so
>they can go stale when we delete bobbles. The code will need to
>be able to detect that a reference has gone stale and deal with
>it appropriately.
>I am going to throw in one curve ball. Our program will contain
>references to created bobbles; we won't know where these are so
>they can go stale when we delete bobbles. The code will need to
>be able to detect that a reference has gone stale and deal with
>it appropriately.
I think your design is broken at this point. This isn't a C
problem you'd have exactly the same issues with C++ despite
it's "machinary" .
>
tr1::shared_ptr .
--
Ian Collins