Basile - 2011/10/19 Basile Starynkevitch <bas...@starynkevitch.net>: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 04:31:48PM +0300, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: >> In the end I believe that it is the patches that talk. Whatever >> patches are going to be submitted, reviewed and accepted, that is >> going to be GCC's future, be it memory management, or something els > > > I was beginning to work on a patch to add finalizable (that is destroyable) > objects to Ggc. So I understand you Laurynas suggest that it might be worth > working on it (while I percieved most other emails, e.g. Ian's or Duncan's > messages, as a hint to avoid losing my time).
I'm not sure in this case. I think that C++ would reduce the need for it, but you need the feature *now*, and GCC codebase is not C++ yet. I agree with other suggestions that the safest option for you is to make it MELT-specific. Or, you could use C++ in MELT. In any case I cannot offer much of opinion, should you work on this or not. Sorry. -- Laurynas
