Not sure where I see either "forever growing" or "memory leak". Come to think of it, not sure what you mean by "mandatory". It is a spec of how the MOP should work internally. Do you have some other way in mind for things to work?
I mean, it sounds like you might be talking about forever adding and removing eql-specialized methods, but I'd rather not guess. Even if so, nothing stops the implementation from GCing unused specializer metaobjects. -hk On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 2:10 AM, Jean-Claude Beaudoin < jean.claude.beaud...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello CL Pros, > > Lately I have been improving the MOPishness of MKCL and that brought me in > contact with the specification of intern-eql-specializer in AMOP. > > The EQ requirement on its returned value seem to me to dictate a > hash-table implementation (PCL and its derivatives all seem to do just > that). > > The problem I see with this is that it will be a "for ever growing" > hash-table with not upper bound in sight. And the "purpose" of such a > mandatory built-in memory leak also completely escapes me. Could any of you > share some insight on this question, please? > > Thank you, > > JCB > > > _______________________________________________ > pro mailing list > pro@common-lisp.net > http://mailman.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro > > -- Kenneth Tilton Fort Lauderdale, FL http://tiltontec.com "In a class by itself." *-Macworld*
_______________________________________________ pro mailing list pro@common-lisp.net http://mailman.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pro
