> How would you make sure the reference counts are correct without
> locking?
>
Yes, a lock is required per variable, but these locks can be stored
in a separate hash, keyed by variable address and magic can be used
to lock a variable before accessing.
It should be possible for multiple interp
At 15:21 +0530 12/19/02, Aravind Srivaths wrote:
It should be possible for multiple interpreters to hold a reference
to the same variable (contrary to what Elizabeth says) - after all
the variable just resides in a heap and all threads share the data
space.
Is that statement true for _all_ syste
On torsdag, dec 19, 2002, at 10:51 Europe/Stockholm, Aravind Srivaths
wrote:
Yes, a lock is required per variable, but these locks can be stored
in a separate hash, keyed by variable address and magic can be used
to lock a variable before accessing.
Huh, magic is already used to do the locki
On tisdag, dec 17, 2002, at 13:06 Europe/Stockholm, Aravind Srivaths
wrote:
Thanks for the response.
Instead, is it not possible to just increment the reference count
of every variable by overloading its clone method. The destructor
can then reduce the reference count. I don't know
enough a
At 17:36 +0530 12/17/02, Aravind Srivaths wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here or what you're
> trying to achieve or point out. Could you elaborate?
Ok, let me start with a question instead - is it possible for two
instances of the interpreter to hold one reference each t
Thanks for the response.
> >Instead, is it not possible to just increment the reference count
> >of every variable by overloading its clone method. The destructor
> >can then reduce the reference count. I don't know
> >enough about cloning to figure out if this will work yet. Perhaps
> >the is
