On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:07 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > Always? E uses async post mortem finalization to implement distributed acyclic GC. Without some way for "GC to invoke user code", I don't see how this is possible. Without it, the resulting memory leak is severe enough to discourage many good distributed programming patterns. > 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. > -- Cheers, --MarkM
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
