Front page | perl.perl6.language |
Postings from February 2001
Dan Sugalski <dan@sidhe.org> writes: > 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. > > > > Also, the vast majority of perl variables have no finalization > > > attached to them. > > > >That's true, but without static typing don't you have to treat them as if > >they did? At the very least you need to do a "is it an object with a > >DESTROY" check at block boundaries. > > Code flow analysis can get an awful lot. Some help from the runtime > will get the rest. > > > It's reasonably obvious (which is to say "cheap") which variables > aren't involved with anything finalizable. Remember too that right now we don't properly finalize everything as quickly as we should in the cases where stuff is caught up in circular references. We don't need to be perfect, but we do need to be predictable. -- PiersThread Previous | Thread Next