|[10 earlier articles]|
|Re: Adding garbage collection to C++ firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-08-17)|
|Re: Adding garbage collection to C++ email@example.com (1992-08-17)|
|Re: Adding garbage collection to C++ firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (1992-08-18)|
|Re: Adding garbage collection to C++ email@example.com (1992-08-18)|
|Re: Adding garbage collection to C++ firstname.lastname@example.org (1992-08-19)|
|Re: Adding garbage collection to C++ email@example.com.OZ.AU (1992-08-20)|
|Re: Adding garbage collection to C++ firstname.lastname@example.org.OZ.AU (1992-08-21)|
|From:||email@example.com.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON)|
|Organization:||Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia|
|Date:||Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:22:25 GMT|
|Keywords:||C++, GC, design, comment|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Thomas M. Breuel) writes:
>As I said before, I don't advocate this scheme. It's a cute solution to an
>interesting puzzle, nothing more.
Ah, yes, but I was disputing whether you had solved the puzzle! :-)
I would certainly agree that the question is purely academic.
To be fair, however, I think that the puzzle should include at least
the following rules: any solution must
- work for any strictly conforming program;
- allow separate compilation;
- not cause memory leaks.
Unfortunately including these conditions makes the puzzle unsolveable, IMHO :-(.
(We seem to have strayed away from serious compiler buisiness.
Follow-ups to comp.lang.c++).
Fergus Henderson email@example.com.OZ.AU
[Enough already of this discussion, it's getting mired in details. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.