Stephen;
Strangely, the following works fine.
I'm increasingly suspecting "@" is ChucKian for saying "please" :¬).
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.
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.
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.