There is a lot of places you can(and you probably will) make bugs.
A) less code less bugs. It's as simple as that.
B) people forget or make misteakes in cleanup order. Compiller doesn't
C) people put stuff to destructors. stuff that can (and will) blow and
no or wrong resources are released.
D) the code you posted is c++ only. Ie. It doesn't work in C. What
about driver/os/embeded developers?
E) Readability. Would you wana write and see more code logic or
copy-paste like cleanup everywhere often resulting to 50% of code?
Compare readability
void proc() {
Object*~ object_ptr = 0;
...
}
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2012 5:09 PM, "_" <neura...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Guys
>>
>> By proposing switch I think no c++ standard is threatened. We allready
>> have switch for unsigned char etc.
>>
>> Looking at most of effort being pushed to STL and all kinds of
>> smart-pointer templates to produce more resilient code.
>> I think C/kernel developers deserve some love too.
>> I strongly belive That automatic cleanup should be provided also for
>> dynamic data on C/C++ low level language level.
>> Imagine specially declared ointers being freed when leaving scope.
>> So normal recovery in case of exception/error without memory leaks or
>> double deallocations are possible without error prone duplicate
>> copy-paste cleanup statements.
>> This will result to simpler and safer but not slower code.
>>
>> First current state example
>>
>> void proc() {
>> Object* object_ptr;
>> // zillion error/exception handlers zillion ways to messup cleanup
>> }
>>
>> Let smart pointer declaration be for example
>> type *~ variable;
>>
>> void proc() {
>> Object*~ object_ptr;
>> // zillion error/exception handlers but destructor/free is
>> automatically called when not null and leaving scope just like with
>> static objects
>> }
>>
>> Another important example
>>
>> struct A {
>> Object*~ object_ptr;
>> Object*~ array[1000]; // during creation of array element [500]
>> exception happens yet resources are properly freed like with static
>> objects
>> }
>>
>> // when stuct is destroyed all non null pointers have free called/
>> destructors where appropriate
>>
>> Now those of you sayng that it is too complex to be done. I already
>> implemented it.
>> You can test it here.
>> http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/468126/new-local-for-safer-and-simpler-code-with-no-need
>>
>> Unfortunately I have no idea how to do it in gcc. Is someone fluid
>> with gcc or it's plugins willing to hlep me ?
>> I would be more than thankfull.
>>
>> I thing it would be best to implement it as compiller switch -fsmart-pointers
>> not requiring scope object and derive statement for objects. ie we
>> need equal flexibility and freedom like have today with static objects
>>
>>
>> What you guys think about this? I don't belive in stl solves all
>> especially in low level land.
>
> What's wrong with doing:
>
> void proc() {
> Object* object_ptr = 0;
> struct cleanup {
> ~cleanup() { delete p; }
> Object*& p;
> } c = { object_ptr };
> ...
> }
>
> ?
