Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:3796 comp.lang.eiffel:291
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!bionet!ames!pacbell!att!cbnewsc!nevin1
From: nevin1@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (nevin.j.liber)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++ -- Let's drop the garbage collection arguments
Message-ID: <1408@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Date: 23 Jun 89 23:00:19 GMT
References: <34@enea.se>
Reply-To: nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM (nevin.j.liber)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 16

In article <34@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:

>I don't have my OOSC around at the moment, but far as I recall Eiffel
>does give you a choice. You can turn off garbage collection if you
>absolutely have to.

But doesn't this affect class (or whatever the equivalent of "class" is
in Eiffel) design?  I, for would, would design differently based on
whether there was GC or not.  Is this done globally or on a
class-by-class basis?  There are problems with either approach.  If it
is global, some classes may die because there is nothing reclaiming
memory.  If it is on a class-by-class basis, I have to avoid all
classes which might possibly use GC, or it really isn't "turned off"
for my class.
-- 
NEVIN ":-)" LIBER  AT&T Bell Laboratories  nevin1@ihlpb.ATT.COM  (312) 979-4751