Re: [Haskell-cafe] Are handles garbage-collected?

2004-10-25 Thread Ketil Malde
Remi Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, [bracket] does indeed have those same drawbacks. (Although the traditional explicit memory management model is alloc/free, which is much worse than bracket/withFile) Isn't bracket more like stack allocated memory? And most problems with explicit

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Relational Algebra post

2004-10-25 Thread Graham Klyne
Cool! That goes on my list for further study. (I have a work-in-progress of something similar for description logics.) #g -- At 15:01 22/10/04 -0700, Brian Beckman wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative;

RE: [Haskell-cafe] Are handles garbage-collected?

2004-10-25 Thread Simon Marlow
On 24 October 2004 20:51, Sven Panne wrote: IMHO it would be best to use explicit bracketing where possible, and hope for the RTS/GC to try its best when one runs out of a given resource. Admittedly the current Haskell implementations could be improved a little bit in the last respect.

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Are handles garbage-collected?

2004-10-25 Thread Remi Turk
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 08:46:41AM +0200, Ketil Malde wrote: Remi Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: IMO, [bracket] does indeed have those same drawbacks. (Although the traditional explicit memory management model is alloc/free, which is much worse than bracket/withFile) Isn't bracket more

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Are handles garbage-collected?

2004-10-25 Thread Remi Turk
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:14:28PM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote: On 24 October 2004 20:51, Sven Panne wrote: IMHO it would be best to use explicit bracketing where possible, and hope for the RTS/GC to try its best when one runs out of a given resource. Admittedly the current Haskell

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Are handles garbage-collected?

2004-10-25 Thread Tomasz Zielonka
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 08:55:46PM +0200, Remi Turk wrote: P.S. Why do so many people (including me) seem to come to Haskell from Python? It can't be just the indentation, can it? ;) How many? I don't. Best regards, Tom -- .signature: Too many levels of symbolic links

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Are handles garbage-collected?

2004-10-25 Thread Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Remi Turk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hm, I'm not sure about the should. Garbage collection is meant for memory, and anything making that less clear makes people more likely to depend on incorrect assumptions. And redefining GC to be a collection of _all_ garbage, instead of just memory

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Are handles garbage-collected?

2004-10-25 Thread Remi Turk
On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 09:28:23PM +0200, Tomasz Zielonka wrote: On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 08:55:46PM +0200, Remi Turk wrote: P.S. Why do so many people (including me) seem to come to Haskell from Python? It can't be just the indentation, can it? ;) How many? I don't. Best regards,

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Are handles garbage-collected?

2004-10-25 Thread Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
Tomasz Zielonka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: P.S. Why do so many people (including me) seem to come to Haskell from Python? It can't be just the indentation, can it? ;) How many? I don't. And I don't either. But indeed I've seen more references to Haskell on Python lists than on other

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Are handles garbage-collected?

2004-10-25 Thread David Menendez
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk writes: I would not be surprised if relying on GC to close open files would be generally considered kosher in a few years - in cases when it has little visible effects outside, i.e. excluding network connections, but including reading configuration files. One of the

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Are handles garbage-collected?

2004-10-25 Thread Sun Yi Ming
From: David Menendez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Are handles garbage-collected? Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:51:34 -0400 Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk writes: I would not be surprised if relying on GC to close open files would be generally considered kosher in a few years - in