[cap-talk] 'Destroy' vs 'Sever'

[Charles Landau]

At 1:05 AM +0000 11/22/07, David Hopwood wrote:
>The issue raised by 'Sever' is that the new reference it returns
>will point to an object that may malfunction, as a result of not
>receiving messages directed to the old object.

Like most tools, Sever can be misused, but I don't see any subtle 
issues tempting the unwary.

>At the point at which another object of the composite
>tries to invoke the destroyed object via an existing reference, it will
>receive an error (typically reported as an exception at the language level),
>which assuming it is not ignored, will abort the current "plan" of the
>other object.

That is also true of 'Sever'.