On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Shiro Kawai <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Alex Shinn <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From the user perspective there is no separation between >> the port and any backing store, and they otherwise have no >> way to free the resources. You should be able to reliably >> accumulate a very large port and free it, or alternately >> maintain many medium ports and not worry about them >> hogging memory after closing. >> > > If you lose the reference to the port, won't the memory be GC'ed? > > It is generally a bad practice to rely on freeing external resources, such > as file descriptors, by GC. But for memory, usually we rely on GC. > Indeed, but for ports people expect resources are freed immediately on closing (at least I do). Users may assume that closed ports only take a constant amount of memory, and not bother to free references to them. Are you arguing in favor of allowing this behavior? The only other 3 implementors to comment were all opposed. Regardless, making a change in favor of this would be adding new implementation requirements post-facto, and would be beyond the scope of an errata. As-is, the result is unspecified, and if all of the WG members agree we could explicitly say it "is an error," but anything more than that should be left for R8RS. -- Alex
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
