Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > MarkM: it does not assist the discussion to confuse the issue by > conflating two distinct levels of abstraction. Operations at the VAT > level occur outside of the E language level. Your statement is not a > counter-example. > > However, my statement does need revision, because there are some newer > explicit allocators that are type safe but not "liveness safe". I'm > thinking of the ones that use type-partitioned heaps.
Aside from type-safe memory systems [1], Erlang is a good example of explicit deallocation despite GC and memory safety. Creating and quickly destroying a separate process is a widely used pattern for prompt reclamation. If there's interest, I can dig up the reference to the Erlang memory management paper where they encouraged this pattern and designed memory management around it. Sandro [1] http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3222 _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
