On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Christophe Grand <christo...@cgrand.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Paul Mooser <taron...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ah -- I hadn't understood that when using destructuring, that >> subsequent bindings could refer to the destructured elements. I should >> have, since clojure "only" has let*, and this behavior seems >> consistent with that, for binding. >> >> Eeww. It seems like quite a thorny issue to solve, even if simple to >> describe. > > Well, in truth, there's a way to fix the loop macro but it is too > ugly: the idea is to wrap the outer let in a closure and replace the > loop by a function, thus we could benefit from the locals clearing on > tail call. > > The real solution would be pervasive locals clearing but I seem to > remember Rich saying he'd like to delay such work until clojure in > clojure. >
Right - pervasive locals clearing will definitely do the trick here. Interestingly, when I was at Microsoft and asked them about handling this issue for the CLR they stated plainly it wasn't an issue at all - their system can fully detect that any such references are in fact unreachable and are subject to GC. So, in a sense, all locals clearing on my part is a workaround for a JVM weakness in this area. >> What's the procedure for creating a ticket for this? Is it at least >> acknowledged that this IS a bug? > > It's better to wait for Rich's opinion on this problem before creating a > ticket. > No ticket, please. This issue is well understood and has been discussed at length. Thanks, Rich -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
