Unknown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could adapt Java's last-generation GC scheme to do a really fast GC
> on scope-exit, only of objects created within that scope. However, this
> may require a relocating or treadmill GC to do efficiently.
Yeah. That's what I'm currently working on:
$ l src
Hum hum hum. What exactly does "destroying" mean in Perl 6? As memory
is managed it probably refers to invoking a finalizer..?
If yes, then you could also use an explicit construct such as C++'s
auto_ptr<> & the likes (read: an "auto" declaration), C# using()
mechanism (read: a "block statement" t
In which Tigger maintains that code relying on timely destruction in
perl5 is buggy [and relatively rare], and agrees wholeheartedly with
Rabbit on almost everything else.
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 17:52 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Shevek writes:
> > The example you described destroyed a ref within a
Unknown writes:
> On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 17:57 -0500, Michael Walter wrote:
> > You could change the GC scheme (*cough*) to use one similar to
> > Python's (ref-counting + additional GC for cyclic references
> > *double-cough*).
>
> You could adapt Java's last-generation GC scheme to do a really fa
Shevek writes:
> On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 16:56 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
>
> > > I thought C++ only guaranteed destruction (on return or exception) for
> > > objects which were directly on the stack.
> >
> > That's true, you have to explicitly delete most memory. I was actually
> > referring to t
Dave Mitchell writes:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 02:40:43PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > What I'd most like is to convince Larry to waive the timely destruction
> > requirement. However, that doesn't really solve the problem for other
> > languages that need timely destruction. Are there any?
>
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 16:56 -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > I thought C++ only guaranteed destruction (on return or exception) for
> > objects which were directly on the stack.
>
> That's true, you have to explicitly delete most memory. I was actually
> referring to the template refcounting class
I think that there are misconceptions about the nature of timely GC in
this thread.
* First I present some notes on how it could be achieved or approximated
using incremental and generational techniques.
* Second, I note that timely GC only exists in C++.
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 17:57 -0500, Michae
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 02:40:43PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> What I'd most like is to convince Larry to waive the timely destruction
> requirement. However, that doesn't really solve the problem for other
> languages that need timely destruction. Are there any?
Perl 5 springs to mind !!!
--
You could change the GC scheme (*cough*) to use one similar to
Python's (ref-counting + additional GC for cyclic references
*double-cough*).
Out-of-this-world-ly yours,
Michael
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:40:43 -0700, Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hildo Biersma writes:
> > If the number of
Hildo Biersma writes:
> If the number of objects that needs this is relatively small, we could
> play a trick somewhat like the following (with small changes to the perl
> compiler):
>
> 1. Break the filehandle object into two: a generic wrapper that uses
> refcounting and forwards all calls, p
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Given is a Perl snippet like:
{
my $fh = IO::File->new;
$fh->open(">test.tmp");
print $fh "a";
}
The filehandle is closed automatically at scope exit and the file
contains the expected contents.
That's quite easy in the current Perl implementation as it d
Given is a Perl snippet like:
{
my $fh = IO::File->new;
$fh->open(">test.tmp");
print $fh "a";
}
The filehandle is closed automatically at scope exit and the file
contains the expected contents.
That's quite easy in the current Perl implementation as it does
reference counting. At t
13 matches
Mail list logo
