| Thanks for the rust sample. It looks very similar.
Can the allocator be customized? As I said I am not Rust specialist. Also, in my understanding is that in Rust, sometimes a dynamic state is created when the object may or may not be moved. In cake ownership this needs to me explicit ( and the destructor is not generated) I also had a look at Rust in lifetime annotations.
This concept may be necessary but I am avoiding it. Consider this sample. struct X {
struct Y * pY;
};
struct Y {
char * owner name;
};
An object Y pointed by pY must live longer than object X.
(Cake is not checking this scenario yet)Also (classic Rust sample) int * max(int * p1, int * p2) {
return *p1 > *p2 ? p1 : p2;
}
int main(){
int * p = NULL;
int a = 1;
{
int b = 2;
p = max(&a, &b);
}
printf("%d", *p);
}
This is not implemented yet but I want to make the lifetime of p be the smallest scope. (this is to avoid lifetime annotations) int * p = NULL;
int a = 1;
{
int b = 2;
p = max(&a, &b);
} //p cannot be used beyond this point*
|
`Box<T>` is the type of an owning pointer that uses the default global allocator, and `Box<T, A>` is the type of an owning pointer that uses an allocator of type `A`. The latter is unstable, ie it can only be used in nightly Rust.
(Also the fact that the latter changes the type means a large part of existing third-party code as well as a bunch of code in libstd itself becomes unusable if you want to use a type-level custom allocator because they only work with `Box<T>`. But that's a different discussion...)
>An object Y pointed by pY must live longer than object X.
Yes, the py field in Rust would use a reference type instead of a pointer, and the reference would need to have a lifetime annotation, and the compiler would work to prevent the situation you describe:
But to be clear, the `'a` lifetime syntax is not what's making this work. What's making this work is that the compiler tracks the lifetimes of references in general. This works in the same way even though there are no lifetime annotations: The explicit lifetime annotations are just for a) readability, and b) because sometimes you want to name them to be able to express relationships between them. Eg if two lifetimes 'a and 'b are in play and you want to express that 'a is at least as long as 'b, then you have to write a `'a: 'b` bound. In many cases they can be omitted and the compiler infers them automatically.