Re: deferred deallocation of local objects

[Stefan Böhringer]

What about raising an exception in that case [not backward compatible,
but semantically logical to me]?

On Wed, 2003-10-15 at 09:12, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 06:14 AM, Richard Frith-Macdonald 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 10:17 PM, Alexander Malmberg wrote:
> >
> >> Figuring
> >> out a way of fixing it properly has been on my TODO list for a while,
> >> but it has been blocked by other things.
> >
> > Me too... I'm still stumped.
> 
> Oops ... I think there is a tendency to take me too literally ...
> What I mean is, I've considered and dismissed a lot of ideas (some of 
> which
> I've mentioned) and can't see any easy solution.
> 
> Ideally I think we need to redesign how retain/release works across DO
> with documentation etc.  I don't think it's currently clear exactly how 
> this
> operates and should operate.
> 
> We need a simple, clear retain/release scheme, which is still reasonably
> efficient ... ie more sophisticated than sending individual 
> retain/release
> messages between processes.
> 
> This would be the ideal both for clarity and possibly minor performance
> improvements, but doing this *and* maintaining backward compatibility
> would be difficult.
> -- 
> Stefan Böhringer <stefan.boehringer@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
> Ruhr-University Bochum