On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 13:37 -0700, Brendan Eich wrote: > On May 22, 2009, at 1:27 PM, David Semeria wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 11:46 -0700, Brendan Eich wrote: > > > >> As Ash points out, there's no memory-safe way to implement obj.kill() > >> short of a full GC. > >> > >> There is no way JS will lose memory safety, ever! > >> > > Why can't the deleted object still exist, with its value set to > > 'null'? > > First, null is not a "value" in the sense of object value. An object > takes up arbitrary space associating property names with values. > You're possibly confusing reference and referent again.
That's very likely - I have only a very rudimentary idea of how the language is implemented in the browser. > Yes, GC uses more memory on average than if you gave explicit advice > that was reliable. But the advice can't be trusted without walking the > object graph. Ok. I assume object references are implemnted bi-directionally, otherwise the GC would take a lifetime to run. If that's the case couldn't obj.kill() check whether the object was killable, and throw if it isn't. That would be a massive debugging aid. > > I intentionally didn't go into specifics, but I can provide some real > > world examples if you think they would be helpful. > > Sure. I'll do that then. It'll take a while to prepare. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
