On 2009-12-11, at 12:43, Brendan Eich wrote: > It would be more than nice. It is important that the spec not mandate any > particular schedule. We have seen endless over-coupling to GC implementation > details where programmers who can hook into finalization or another GC phase > do so for all the wrong reasons: to close fds, free database cursors, send a > message, update UI, etc. Crazy stuff.
+n In my experience, it is always a bad idea for the GC to invoke user-code. Please don't throw out the weak-key tables with the finalization bathwater. > But if there is no guarantee of when the notification might happen, then > programmers should not expect any scheduling akin to setTimeout with a > timeout of zero. I initially mis-read this as saying setTimeout with a timeout of 0 might never be scheduled. But that's not what you said. -- I was amused by this aside from the strawman: > Since I can never remember the black/white polarity of traditional gc > descriptions, I will use retained for black, fringe for gray, and untraced > for white. _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
