-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01-12-12 18:45, Neil Toronto wrote:
Rather than a guarantee (or a probabilistic estimate) of actual
collection, could the garbage collector's opinion of what is or isn't
garbage be exposed somehow?
Marijn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: G
Thanks. Is the N suggestion a future-proofing kind of a thing, or is
there something today that could cause such a test to pass where a
single one might fail?
Robby
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> This guide material (as opposed to language specification and
> guarantees)
This guide material (as opposed to language specification and
guarantees) looks pretty good to me. I'll edit and add the suggestion
of N allocations.
At Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:39:09 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
> Let me also say that I think it is important to give advice on how to
> test so I think we
Let me also say that I think it is important to give advice on how to
test so I think we need to say something.
Robby
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> At Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:04:15 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>>>
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:47 AM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:04:15 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Robby Findler
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree that when something is collected is a pretty intentional
>> > property but I think it is possible to sa
At Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:04:15 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree that when something is collected is a pretty intentional
> > property but I think it is possible to say a little bit more since
> > there is a pretty stable core i
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Robby Findler
wrote:
>
> I agree that when something is collected is a pretty intentional
> property but I think it is possible to say a little bit more since
> there is a pretty stable core idea there (namely that if something
> isn't reachable and you call collect
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> On 12/02/2012 12:10 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>>>
I think the high-level answer is that you have to understan
On 12/02/2012 12:10 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
On Dec 1, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
I think the high-level answer is that you have to understand something
about details that aren't currently specified but nevertheless are h
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> On Dec 1, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
>
>> I think the high-level answer is that you have to understand something
>> about details that aren't currently specified but nevertheless are how
>> things currently work and then ma
On Dec 1, 2012, at 9:23 PM, Robby Findler wrote:
> I think the high-level answer is that you have to understand something
> about details that aren't currently specified but nevertheless are how
> things currently work and then make a test that will work when you
> make those additional assumptio
I think the high-level answer is that you have to understand something
about details that aren't currently specified but nevertheless are how
things currently work and then make a test that will work when you
make those additional assumptions (and then keep it running in drdr so
you can tell when t
On 12/01/2012 07:05 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
Ah. It prints #f for me when I have debugging info turned on in
DrRacket; otherwise I get #. Must be inlining keeping it
around or something.
The problem with either finalizers or weak boxes is that neither
provides enough guarantees. Finalizers are ne
Ah. It prints #f for me when I have debugging info turned on in
DrRacket; otherwise I get #. Must be inlining keeping it
around or something.
The problem with either finalizers or weak boxes is that neither
provides enough guarantees. Finalizers are never guaranteed to be run. A
weak box may
This prints #f for me.
#lang racket
(define (make-box-thing v)
(make-weak-box (λ (_) v)))
(define bx (make-box-thing 4))
(collect-garbage)
(weak-box-value bx)
And I guess that non-closure procedures are held onto by the modules
they are inside. This program prints #f for me, and it seems to
c
Honestly, because I was too rushed to try them before I had to leave
this morning. :D However, now that I have the chance, I've found that
Typed Racket doesn't support them. I can't add support using
`required/typed', because `Weak-Box' would have to be a polymorphic type.
Also, they don't see
How about using a weak box instead?
Robby
On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> I'm getting ready to push a change to math/array that fixes a memory leak.
> I've devised a test that I think will determine whether an array's procedure
> gets collected after the array is made stri
I'm getting ready to push a change to math/array that fixes a memory
leak. I've devised a test that I think will determine whether an array's
procedure gets collected after the array is made strict, but I don't
know whether it works only by accident. Here it is:
(define: collected? : (Boxof B
18 matches
Mail list logo
