Actually, they want to be both key-weak and datum-weak. On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Taylor R Campbell <campb...@mumble.net> wrote: > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:49:38 -0800 > From: Chris Hanson <c...@chris-hanson.org> > > I agree with most of your analysis. > > OK, I'll start making the changes. > > *** xml/xml-names.scm > > This is hairy: part of it looks like it needs to be datum-weak, but we > don't have that now. But someone more familiar with the XML name > abstraction should review this. > > **************** > All three tables should be weak. > > Making them weak will do nothing, actually, because every datum in > them has a strong reference to its key. These want to be datum-weak > hash tables, not key-weak hash tables. So I think that for now, since > we don't have datum-weak hash tables, these should all be strong, > perhaps with a comment about what the state of affairs should be. >
_______________________________________________ MIT-Scheme-devel mailing list MIT-Scheme-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/mit-scheme-devel
