On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 1:42 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > I spent some more time digging into this, experimenting with different > approaches. Came up with pretty significant changes; see below:
Hi Heikki, I think this approach is good. As I wrote in the first email, I had briefly considered reference counting, but at the time I figured there wasn't much point if it's only ever going to be 0 or 1, so I was trying to find the smallest change. But as you explained, there is already an interesting case where it goes to 2, and modelling it that way removes a weird hack, so it's a net improvement over the unusual 'owner' concept. +1 for your version. Are there any further tidying or other improvements you want to make? Typos in comments: s/desroyed/destroyed/ s/receiveing/receiving/
