On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, Andrew Kuchling wrote: > 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 I'd rather have this solved by weak references then by building cycles. Cycles are evil even in the face of GC -- you have undetermined finalization. -- Moshe Zadka <moshez@math.huji.ac.il> There is no IGLU cabal. http://advogato.org/person/moshez
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