On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Kassen
Must mean it's a garbage collection issue, since in this case there remains in memory a reference to the new Foo.
I'm not surprised about that at all considering the error message talks about a reference count and Ge has mentioned using those for garbage collection.
Great, so now we do have at least some garbage collection, even if it's not working perfectly yet. That's at least a silver lining.
Yup, it probably needs some work, and at least I think reference-based garbage collection is a little easier to get right than the "hunt through memory for pointers" style. Though each has its own downsides if I recall, such as cyclical references.
If you add "baz @=> f;" to the end of this script, it crashed, which proves it.
Ok.... but I'd say that line should be valid as there *is* a rather clear reference to "f". This is kept track of as well because appending the file with "int f;" instead will give a (correct) complaint about "f" already having been defined in this scope. I can understand there being some bug left in the initialisation of apended array locations as those are new but calling a instance "f" is not new at all. It seems like there is something going wrong with the reference count in assignment as well or instead.
Well, I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying, but what's happening is that 'f' references a new Foo, and then that foo is added to the array. When it's later replaced, it's not garbage collected because 'f' still references it. But when 'f' is made to point somewhere else, *then* it gets garbage collected, which for some reason causes an exception. Appended 'int f' doesn't make much sense though since the problem doesn't lie with 'f', but with what 'f' points to. It'll just say that 'f' is already defined.
new Foo @=> Foo @f; foo << f;
Lovely. I'll take this to Mike's "spaghetti with spicy bug-sauce" and see how far that gets us.
It's kinda ironical how civilisation has gotten us to the point where we can debate programing languages internationally over a electronic network yet we are still forced to organise hunting parties. Nice catch you got there.
Ha. :) Steve