[fpc-devel]Proposal for audo-destructors
Marco van de Voort
marcov at stack.nl
Sun Sep 12 19:11:27 CEST 2004
> The problem actualy is not in automated destructors,
> but in that the Class
> types are actually pointers in Delphi OO model. That
> IS the hack, that makes some
> tasty stuff impossible (RAII)
Afaik RAII is simply that automated stuff is guaranteed finalised in a
predicatable time? (unlike e.g. Java where the GC can defer disposing an
One can perfectly code in FPC such that way. Of course one should write
sensible code, but a few automated types won't help with that.
IMHO the C++ way is not safer this way either, since there are numerous
gotcha's. It mainly improves the amount of code one has to write, not
safety. However a sound alternative is to put this into the IDE.
IIRC smartpointers were added to C++ drafts to get a better security rating
according to American military standards.
> or unconvinient (programmer has not to forget destructor).
Programmer must not forget to declare auto either. If you really want to
avoid human mistakes, automated code analysis systems is a wiser way to go.
> Just have a look at "classes" and "pointers to classes" in C.
Yes. BP did that too, (static objects are still possible in FPC that way)
luckily Delphi improved on that.
> The problem is that we have no similiar functionality for first ones in
As said, IMHO we don't need it. It is a feature for a different kind of
language. Ok, C++ added it, but C++ pretty much added everything they could
find :-) That's aggregation, not design.
More information about the fpc-devel