Andrew Kuchling <akuchlin@mems-exchange.org>:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 06:08:18PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> >Wrong answer. The right answer is to fix lambda (or some variant of lambda)
> >to be a true lexical closure.
>
> Hm... hmmmm... fixing this has been suggested before, but always
> foundered on the fact that creating a closure required a cycle, which
> would leak memory. Now we have an optional GC that should handle
> this, so maybe fixing it can be revisited. (But this would mean that
> GC is essentially no longer optional -- maybe too radical a thing to
> do before we're sure about the new GC. 2.1, maybe?)
I think there's enough controversy about comprehensions at this point to
warrant not rushing out an implementation we might regret.
(Heh. Look at me telling *Guido* to go slow and careful...heh.)
--
<a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr">Eric S. Raymond</a>
To make inexpensive guns impossible to get is to say that you're
putting a money test on getting a gun. It's racism in its worst form.
-- Roy Innis, president of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), 1988
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4