If RAII is broken by "Managed C++" then "Managed C++" is broken. On May 26, 2004, at 6:22 PM, Brian Braatz wrote:
(My own post got me thinking some more). I am new to boost, and do not fully have my head around all that exists. But I am asking a general question here, has anyone tried running boost under "Managed C++", I assume there is a lot of RAII type of usage in boost that I assume would break. Or am I misunderstanding something?
Thanks to anyone who can clarify.
-----Original Message----- From: Brian Braatz Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 5:18 PM To: 'boost@lists.boost.org' Subject: RE: [boost] Re: [prereview request][fsm]
My 2 cents """""""""""""""""" This is certainly doable. However, I'm unsure whether the current
design allows a you-don't-pay-for-what-you-don't-use implementation of
such a feature. Plus, I'm still not convinced that this feature would be used more than rarely. Do you have some real-world use cases in mind?
[David Abrahams] Unfortunately I'm not so familiar with what exit actions in FSMs are typically used for, but from an abstract point of view I don't think of resource releasing as an "action". If you were writing this stuff in a GC'd language, for the most part, you wouldn't devote any exit action code to resource releases. """""""""""""""""' I think this is a very good point as MS seems (IMO\whether I like it or not) to be driving us down a managed GC path for future C++ efforts. This is something to deeply consider. Not that MS is "everything", but they do have a lot of C++ developers using their tools and os's.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost