Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Owen Jacobson, post: 1510768"] On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 04:47:35 +0300, assaarpa wrote: (Attributions mangled by parent.) Let me outline what he's getting at, just in case you've missed it. You said "Use std containers to pass objects across dll boundaries and you crash and burn so beautifully", which implies that this is true in all cases. As a matter of fact, it's not true in all cases. Therefore, your generalization was incorrect by virtue of being false in some cases, which in turn damages your credibility. This is not a failing of the C++ programming language, but of the environment (in this case, the linker and the OS's shared library mechanism). Windows' DLL semantics were designed and written in an age when C++ was barely a drunken urge, as it were. All of this is secondary, though: the restrictions that, you feel, make the STL "useless" are not restricted to the C++ standard library. As has been pointed out repeatedly, you'll have the same problem with any code under Windows that allocates memory in one heap and tries to free it while using a different heap. The C++ standard library happens to do a lot of memory management, as a consequence of containing a lot of container classes. In short, fix your environment. The language and the library work fine. Correction: using the standard library (or, indeed, anything which may do memory allocation behind the scenes) is tricky in environments brain-damaged enough to run library code against a different heap than the caller. This is not a failing of the standard library -- it's a failure in the environment to have sane memory semantics. I don't see how engineering the code to certain specifications, whether provided as part of the language or as part of the project, in any way impacts reusability. Any code which respects the described ownership model will be able to use code implementing that ownership model. ok [/QUOTE]

Verification