3 May
2011
3 May
'11
7:50 p.m.
On 05/03/2011 12:28 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 5/3/2011 7:47 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
On 5/3/2011 2:43 AM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
or if(p) rather sorry.
I imagine this is more convenient, yes. I'll make the change in a bit.
The problem is this only happens in the destructor and operator bool is usually called many times outside of the destructor. If I check for cyclicism inside operator bool then this would create unnecessary overhead for the calls outside of the destructor.
When you detect a cycle to be destroyed, would it be possible to zero all of the relevant pointers before invoking any destructors?