On Feb 25, 3:59 pm, Sebastian Kaliszewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > 1. Your "generic" resource-management infrastructure is not generic to begin > with! It does not work for mutually dependant resources.
How so? Could you give a concrete example? > 2. Your "generic" infrastructure increases burden on the programmer > everywhere any resorce (including trivial one like memory) is used, while > GC kills that burden in 95% of the cases. C++ish approach puts the notion > of ownership everywhere - both in 95% of cases where it's useless and in > remaining 5% where it's actually needed. That's not reduced effort by any > means. Like others around here you seem not to be aware of the existence of the standard C++ library. That and local variables usually deal with well over half the cases of memory management in any non trivial application, and boost::shared_ptr can deal with a good portion of the rest. > 3. You can't handle clean-up errors in reasonable way in C++ish approach, so > anything more complex should not by handled that way anyway. So it's okay for a Python mechanism to deal with 95% of the cases, but not for a C++ one? At least in C++ resource management only becomes more complicated if you need more control. Cheers, Nicola Musatti -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
