Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Smart pointers and stupid people (was: garbage collection...)
Message-ID: <70606@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 11 Feb 91 20:51:37 GMT
References: <3344@lupine.NCD.COM> <4174@osc.COM> <TOM.91Jan28082617@hcx2.ssd.csd.harris.com> <3779@lupine.NCD.COM>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 19

In article <3779@lupine.NCD.COM> rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) writes:

|Remember, C++ objects don't move.

Essentially, GC proposals for C++ fall into two camps:

1)  Those GC techniques that don't move C++ objects.

2)  Those GC techniques that do move C++ objects.

Clearly, moving C++ objects either represents [depending on your point
of view] a change in the language, or a hack performed on a particular
implementation of the language.  Still, I don't see how this prevents
one from considering the ramifications of performing GC on C++ with
moveable objects.

MS-Windows, for example, uses moveable objects in *C*, no less.
The impact is not as bad on the programmer as one might expect,
if object movement is restricted to relatively rare, well-defined times.