comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Do we need PTR

Home » Public Forums » archive » Do we need PTR_FREE anymore?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: Do we need PTR_FREE anymore? [message #71988 is a reply to message #71928]

Fri, 30 July 2010 10:29

wlandsman
Messages: 743
Registered: June 2000

Senior Member

On Jul 30, 1:07 pm, James <donje...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wlandsman, that example doesn't sound particularly obscure to me -- it
> seems like it could come up frequently when dealing with linked data
> structures.

I notice that early versions of Python had the same limitation, but
since 2.2 (I think) it can handle the case where 2 pointers reference
each other.
>
> It's a little unusual that IDL has added garbage collection but kept
> manual memory management intact. Most languages only offer one or the
> other. It's pretty unusual for a language as high-level as IDL to
> have manual memory management at all.

The manual memory management was introduced back in 1997, and they
seem to have made a strong effort to keep backwards compatibility. --
Wayne

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Do we need PTR_FREE anymore? By: wlandsman on Wed, 28 July 2010 18:23
		Re: Do we need PTR_FREE anymore? By: Adam Lefkoff on Fri, 30 July 2010 12:12
		Re: Do we need PTR_FREE anymore? By: wlandsman on Fri, 30 July 2010 10:29
		Re: Do we need PTR_FREE anymore? By: Michael Galloy on Fri, 30 July 2010 10:29
		Re: Do we need PTR_FREE anymore? By: James[2] on Fri, 30 July 2010 10:07

Previous Topic:	IDL 8.0: How to update IMAGE data?
Next Topic:	100% free dell laptaps offerd by dell and Vodafone companies.

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Sun Oct 12 08:41:55 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 1.36017 seconds