> I think the language would be well-served by allowing classes > to optionally declare destructors which run when an object is > reclaimed by the system. This would open up different and > useful object management possibilities in complex designs. I agree strongly; but I'd question whether "when reclaimed by the system" is right. The garbage collector may not get around to reclaiming an object for a very long time after the object has been "disowned" (becomes unreachable). I've already raised the issue of a coverage group in an object continuing to collect coverage data (and thus making spurious contributions to the coverage database) after all references to it have been lost; there are, I'm sure, many such scenarios to worry about. Surely the time to invoke the optional destructor would be when an object becomes a *candidate* for reclamation. And yes, I know that's much harder to implement. -- Jonathan Bromley, Consultant DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223 Email: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573 Web: http://www.doulos.com The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Jan 10 10:29:02 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jan 10 2007 - 10:29:05 PST