Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from February 2001
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:29:21 -0500, Dan Sugalski <dan@sidhe.org> wrote: >At 10:38 AM 2/12/2001 -0500, Sam Tregar wrote: >>On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote: >> >> > Perl needs some level of tracking for objects with finalization attached to >> > them. Full refcounting isn't required, however. >> >>I think I've heard you state that before. Can you be more specific? What >>alternate system do you have in mind? Is this just wishful thinking? > >This isn't just wishful thinking, no. You've been asked multiple times to share how this is supposed to work. Is there a specific reason you don't want to talk about it? As far as I can see, there is only *one* reason to go to partial refcounting: it saves some memory. But beyond that, it is slower, more complicated and shares all the disadvantages of refcounting. Why don't you want to just keep the current scheme and avoid having to think about mark-and-sweep altogether if you agree that at least partial refcounting will still be needed? -Jan