|
From: | Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: | Re: deferred deallocation of local objects |
Date: | Wed, 15 Oct 2003 08:12:07 +0100 |
On Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 06:14 AM, Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
On Tuesday, October 14, 2003, at 10:17 PM, Alexander Malmberg wrote:Figuring out a way of fixing it properly has been on my TODO list for a while, but it has been blocked by other things.Me too... I'm still stumped.
Oops ... I think there is a tendency to take me too literally ...What I mean is, I've considered and dismissed a lot of ideas (some of which
I've mentioned) and can't see any easy solution. Ideally I think we need to redesign how retain/release works across DOwith documentation etc. I don't think it's currently clear exactly how this
operates and should operate. We need a simple, clear retain/release scheme, which is still reasonablyefficient ... ie more sophisticated than sending individual retain/release
messages between processes. This would be the ideal both for clarity and possibly minor performance improvements, but doing this *and* maintaining backward compatibility would be difficult.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |