On 26 October 2004 03:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Simon Marlow wrote:
>> I've been wondering whether having a more synchronous kind of
>> finalizer would be a good thing.
>
> Hans Boehm in his POPL2003 paper "Destructors, Finalizers, and
> Synchronization" persuasively argued that finalizers _must_ be
> asynchronous. That assertion is the title of Section 3.5 of the paper.
I didn't mean fully synchronous, just "more synchronous". For example,
the finalization routine could be run directly after garbage collection.
Hugs & nhc98 already do this, because they don't support Haskell
finalizers.
Just a thought, anyway (and I've read that paper, it's great).
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
