At 03:54 PM 12/6/00 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > Non-refcounting GC schemes are more expensive when they collect, but less
> > expensive otherwise, and it apparently is a win for the non-refcount
> > schemes.
>
>Which is why GC is intimately tied to DESTROY consideration in terms of
>Perl. If we intend to honor predictable DESTROY timing, and I think we
>should, then we will need to reference count. No ifs, elses or
>alternations. Anyone care to refute?
Sure, but only objects. (or, to be really paranoid, things referred to)
Nothing else needs refcounting. All the refcounting code can be isolated in
the reference creation and deletion code, and we don't have to pay it
otherwise.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
