GC and finalizers [was: No destructor]

[Paul Duffin]

Rainer Deyke wrote:
> 
> "Paul Duffin" <pduffin at hursley.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:39AF7855.E5BA69A8 at hursley.ibm.com...
> > So how are these "unbreakable" cycles supposed to be prevented, the only
> > way that I can see is to remove finalizers from classes which may find
> > themselves in a cycle. The trouble with this is that the finalizers are
> > there for a purpose and it may not be possible to remove them.
> >
> > What can be done in this situation to prevent "unbreakable" cycles ?
> 
> All cycles should be treated as bugs.
> 

That seems a very limiting position to take. The optional GC in 2.0 will 
collect cycles without finalizers so that is probably not the opinion of 
the BDFL, otherwise the GC would probably raise errors.