Guile Mailing List Archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The taming of the before-gc-hook (was Re: Upcoming 1.3.2 release)



Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com> writes:

> I don't think Guile should include any Scheme-level GC hooks.  That's
> a meta-level crossing that I think is particularly nasty.
> 
> We should certainly provide both before- and after-gc hooks at the C
> level.  These can be used safely and productively (as in SCWM's case),
> and they give foolish users the opportunity to hang themselves
> however they please.

Jim, we *need* at least one gc-hook on the Scheme level.
(We currently have the %gc-thunk.)

Without it we loose the ability to get code executed when GC actually
happens.  It would drain the power of guardians so that they become
*less* powerful than finalization.

A typical thing is to put a guardian harvester procedure on the
after-gc-hook.

What about alternative 1?
It is simple, symmetrical and clean.

?

Guile Home | Main Index | Thread Index