Hi folks,
da Silva, Joe wrote:
FWIW, I see the "store pointer" being what you are describing here as the "other pointer" (I think). It points to the real data, and the "reference pointers" just point to it (the "store pointer").
That was my idea, yes... but after re-thinking, I now found an unintentional side effect: This would cause the reference pointer to _always_ point to the data of the store pointer, even if you dispose and re-new the store; the command sequence
new ( store ); ... reference:= store; (* set reference^ to store^ *) ... dispose ( store ); (* set reference to nil *) ... new ( store ); (* set reference^ to store^ ... without a command *)
would then contain a new trap to tangle up the logic of the program. The implicit handling of a store/reference concept doing exactly what it is supposed to do (hooking the reference to the _data_, not to its store) would, as Frank said, really be more complicated, I fear.
Bye
Markus