Calvin Guo
7/14/2003 9:26:00 PM
Thanks for the reply.
I am just not sure where the technology is going. The
destructor in C++ is so handy, and they just take it away.
And gone all the goods of C++ compiler. :-)
The attributes is great if they are truly extensible. Will
it be great if we can specify some local variable as:
[RunDestructor]
MyClass myobj = new MyClass();
?? :-)
..Net use Garbage Collector to take care memory problem,
but for some coputer resources, it''s so important to
release immediately, or else it will crush the
application. And we really should not depend on the
programmers to call:
obj.Close();
manually.
Calvin
>-----Original Message-----
>Calvin,
>Unfortunately no. The closest you will get is to have
end, renamed Dispose
>from the IDisposable interface, then recommend to your
clients that they use
>the ''using'' statement in their code, which will
automatically call the
>Dispose method.
>
> using (Calvin o = new Calvin())
> {
> ...
> }
>
>You could set some flag in your start method, that get
reset in your end
>method, that subsequently in the Finalize method it gets
flagged, however
>this would be way too late...
>
>Hope this helps
>Jay
>
>"Calvin" <szguoxz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:004e01c34a2f$6744db30$a501280a@phx.gbl...
>> I have a class, has a start(), end() method.
>>
>> I want to make sure that start() and end() should be
>> always paired called in the same codeblock or function,
>> i.e.:
>> try
>> {
>> o.Start();
>> ...
>> }
>> Finally
>> {
>> o.End();
>> }
>>
>>
>> I could write the documentation, but is there anyway to
>> enforce this rule by compiler or runtime so it will
>> generate Compiling Error or Runtime Error if they are
not
>> called in Pair?
>>
>> -----Miss the Destructor in C++
>>
>> Calvin
>
>
>.
>