title: In the Dispose(bool) method implementation, Shouldn't one set members to null?
body: <p>None of the guides/notes/articles that discuss <code>IDisposable</code> pattern suggest that one should set the internal members to <code>null</code> in the <code>Dispose(bool)</code> method (especially if they are memory hogging beasts).</p>
  
  <p>I've come to realize the importance of it while debugging an internal benchmark tool. What used to happen was that, there was this buffer that contained a big array inside it. We used to use a static buffer for the whole benchmark program. Once we're done with the buffer, there was no way we could release this internal array, neither could we make this buffer releasable (as it was static).</p>
  
  <p>So, I believe that, after <code>Dispose()</code> is called, the class should do everything it can so that it releases all the resources it is using and make them available again, even if the object being disposed itself is not collected back by GC, and not setting members to null, thereby, not allowing the internal objects to be collected by the GC implies that the Dispose implementation is not perfect. </p>
  
  <p>What's your opinion on this ?</p>