[antlr-interest] "finally" blocks
Paul J. Lucas
pauljlucas at mac.com
Mon Jan 17 22:38:01 PST 2005
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Alan Gutierrez wrote:
> * Paul J. Lucas <pauljlucas at mac.com> [2005-01-18 01:13]:
> > I wasn't asking. I think you're misquoting. Terence was the
> > one who was asking.
> Yes. I know. And if Terrence was asking if reliance of
> destructors is prevelent in C++, in leiu of finally, I'm saying,
> the answer is yes.
OK, if you knew, then you intentionally misquoted (for reasons
that aren't clear).
> > The lone standard such wrapper is auto_ptr<T>.
> Boost has a number of such wrappers.
I clearly said "standard": Boost isn't part of ISO C++.
> I also consider the std::string, std::list, std::vector to be RAII
std::string is; std::list is, but only if T is an object that
has a destructor. If T is really MyObject*, then, although the
list will be properly destroyed, all the MyObjects will be
leaked. Same with vector.
In my own code, I've created variants of auto_ptr<T>, i.e.,
various flavors of managed_ptr<T> that properly destroys the T
object when the pointer to it gets destroyed.
But I digress...
> My mistake. I'll go back to saying, for C++, forget about it.
And, IMHO, it's not such a bad thing. A C++ programmer would
never want to have a "finally" block in ANTLR anyway because a
C++ programmer doesn't think about "finally" blocks at all
since C++ doesn't have them.
But a Java programmer wants/expects a "finally" block in ANTLR
because Java has them.
More information about the antlr-interest