Re: [Caml-list] Scoped Bound Resource Management just for C++?

[Andreas Rossberg <rossberg@mpi-sws.org>]

On Feb 9, 2011, at 20.11 h, Florian Weimer wrote:

>> Scope-bound resource management is inherently broken, at least
>> without sophisticated type system support.
>
> If the environment supports communicating processes with separate
> execution pointers, it is straightforward to bypass restrictions, no
> matter how evolved the type system is.

I don't know what scenario you have in mind with "separate execution  
pointers". In principle, I'm pretty certain that you could always  
define some suitable (e.g. linear) type system, if your language was  
sufficiently well-behaved.

>> 2) or it is unsafe, i.e. you can access an object after its life  
>> time has
>> ended, with potentially desastrous effects.
>
> This can be made safe with type-safe memory and run-time checks.  I
> don't think this is a good excuse.

True, runtime checks can deal with some of the "disastrous effects",  
but they cannot make it safe in a broader sense (e.g., type-safe in an  
interesting way), and AFAICS don't apply to memory itself as a  
resource. You may argue that that is good enough, but then again, you  
can already achieve that level of assurance using higher-order  
functions.

/Andreas